Contents

7 Gender and communication

Sex or gender? Biology or culture? 7.2 Gender and communication: The state of play 7.20
Clash of ideas: Feminism vs. evolutionary 1. The differences are about power, not gender 7.20
psychology 7.2 2. There are no or few real differences anyway 7.21
Brains and ability: Biology is destiny? 7.3 3. The differences are real, but will unfair
Gender and communication: Differences and use be made of them? 7.21
similarities 7.7 4. The differences are real, and they indicate
The spoken word: Talk, talk, talk 7.7 a better world (or perhaps the same old
one . . .) 7.21
Genderlects: Rapport talk and report talk 7.8 5. Specific communication patterns exist, but
Rapport, aggression, indirect communication their causes are misinterpreted 7.21
and relational bullying 7.8 Where to from here? 7.22
Martians, Venusians and communication 7.9
Summary 7.23
Other speech differences between males
and females 7.11 Student study guide 7.23
Body talk: Non-verbal communication 7.13 KEY T ERMS 7. 23
The written word: Men and women writing 7.16 R EVI EW QUES TI ON S 7. 24

Male and female registers? 7.16 APPL I ED AC TI V I TI ES 7. 24

Man-made? Unloading language and becoming W HAT WO ULD YOU DO ? 7. 24

inclusive 7.16 R EFER EN CES 7.25
Gender-neutral expression 7.17 SUG G ESTED READI N G 7. 28
Styles of communication and conflict 7.19 ACKN OW L EDG EMENT S 7. 29
Contents
 7
Gender and communication

After reading this chapter you should be able to:

• Discuss the biological and cultural background of sex and gender
• Identify perceived differences in female and male approaches to spoken, non-verbal and
written communication
• Explain the basis of communication problems and conflicts between genders
• Articulate reservations about the validity of gender as a variable in human communication
• Learn gender-neutral communication techniques

Constructivism: the idea
that sex and gender are
essentially different
concepts, with sex defining
inherited characteristics
and gender referring to
roles that are socialised or
learned; sometimes carries
the implication that learned
behaviour is more socially
significant than inherited
behaviour
Essentialism: the idea that
sex and gender are
essentially the same;
sometimes carries the
implication that inherited
behaviour is socially more
significant than learned
behaviour
Communicating in the 21st Century
7.2
Do men and women communicate in different ways? Is it possible, for example, that the
spoken, written and non-verbal communication of humans can be understood in terms of
their sex? These are the questions we will be addressing in this chapter. Such answers as we
come up with may have implications for our personal and professional lives.
It should be stressed from the outset that the field of gender communication, like those of
a number of other specific types of communication discussed in this book, is very young in
historical terms: apart from some early research (e.g. Jesperson 1922), the area of study is
barely a few decades old, with much of the research carried out only in the past few years.
The best work is still to come (and perhaps some of it will be done by you).
The relative immaturity of the field, combined with the fact that many females and males
hold strong opinions (and prejudices) about male/female differences in general and communi-
cation in particular, means that whatever conclusions we might reach will be tentative. For all
that, they may be enlightening, and may even provide us with opportunities to recharge our
sense of humour and our goodwill — precious qualities in any field of communication but
perhaps particularly in this one.
Sex or gender? Biology or culture?
Why do we use the word gender rather than sex? Surely ‘sex’ is what differentiates males and
females? Not necessarily. A view that has emerged in the past few decades is that ‘gender’ is
socially constructed rather than genetically transmitted. Indeed it is possible that gender will come
to be used as a verb (to be gendered, or to gender something or someone). ‘Essentialists’ who oppose
this view use the two terms interchangeably to speak of a product of evolution and biology.
Constructivism and essentialism, then, distinguish between a belief in the pre-eminent influence
of environment or nurture, on the one hand, and of heredity or nature on the other.
Clash of ideas: Feminism vs. evolutionary
psychology
This clash of ideas has been driven by two major intellectual movements of the past several
decades — feminism on the one hand, and the disciplines of evolutionary psychology on the
other.
Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are science-based disciplines that attempt to
explain current human behaviour in terms of evolutionary strategies of men and women
developed in prehistoric and indeed prehuman times (e.g. Buss 2004; Browne 2002; De Wall
& Maner 2008, Dunbar & Barratt 2009, Iredale, Van Vugt, & Dunbar 2008, Miller & Kanazawa
2008; Moir 2001; Pinker 2003; Thornhill & Gangestad 2009; Stenstrom, Stenstrom, Saad, &
Cheikhrouhou 2008; see also chapter 8, ‘Non-verbal communication, pp. 262–3).
• Animal primate behaviour gives us insight into human behaviour.
• Much primate behaviour shows strong role specialisation, with females tending offspring,
gathering plant foods and staying close to home base, and males operating in hunter bands
far from the home base, using coordinated aggression to hunt prey.
• Much female behaviour in these circumstances is concerned with establishing rapport with
other females in food-gathering activities, while much male behaviour is concerned with
goal-oriented behaviour of tracking and hunting animals, with minimal verbal interaction
with other males except for exchanging problem-solving techniques and mapping out
territory.
• Men and women follow two different paths or strategies, as dictated by Darwinian natural
selection: females invest energy and scarce biological resources on having one or a few
partners and raising offspring to maximise the chances of that gene set being transferred
 to subsequent generations, while males invest energy and abundant biological resources in
having offspring with as many mates as possible.
Sex/gender differentiation may, in this view, go even further:

Women, for their part, will compete for those men who invest in their children, thus raising
their value. While the impact of these elements varies from one culture to the next, the
pattern remains: Women invest in children more than men, and men, all other things being
equal, prefer more sexual partners than do women.
Given these facts, the EPs [evolutionary psychologists] suggest, men will naturally be
inclined to pursue multiple partners. Their efforts, from an evolutionary point of view, will be
put into finding a beautiful woman (genetically more appealing), finding as many partners
as possible, and honing their physical skills in order to battle with other men for desirable
women. Emotional skills that might lead to long-term relationships, in this view, have little
role. Women, on the other hand, will pursue men who are more likely to stick around the
morning after and help provide the food and protection mother and child will need to
survive.
Upsetting to critics of EP theories is the suggestion, popularized in the press, that what is
biological is unchangeable. ‘One of my objections to evolutionary psychology,’ explains
Mary Gergen, Ph.D., professor of psychology and women’s studies at Pennsylvania State
University–Delaware County and a hard-core believer that gender is primarily a social
construct, ‘is that it tends to stabilize and justify existing patterns of social relationships.
They say they are presenting “just the facts ma’am,” but it justifies the status quo.’
(Blustain 2000, pp. 42–4)

But Barnett and Rivers (2004) find that attractive women do not necessarily produce more
offspring, and that women in general are now more likely to be economically independent
and have less need to establish relationships with older males to maintain security, wealth
and status. Instead, research shows that economically independent women are more likely to
prefer younger males as mates, who have qualities like empathy, understanding and the
ability to bond with children.
Does that rebut the essentialist argument? Perhaps, but we need to be careful not to dis-
count the traditional older male/younger female model, which may be still embedded in
whatever genetic programming we all have.
The war over gender is complicated by a meta-gender factor: most writers developing an
essentialist line seem to be men, while most writers pursuing a constructivist line seem to be
women.
This is not always the case, of course. Anne Campbell (2002), a psychologist specialising in
the evolutionary background of female aggression, argues that females have always been
more proactive in selecting partners and ensuring their own reproductive success, using
strategies such as competition, rivalry and indirect aggression towards other females, and
strategies of unfaithfulness towards men. Neurobiologist Richard Francis (2004) takes issue
with pat sociobiological dictums (e.g. ‘Men won’t ask for directions because they believe in
their own spatial abilities to navigate — developed in prehistoric hunting bands — and to do Chapter 7 Gender and communication
so would be to lose face’) and suggests that essentialism seriously overestimates the influence
of prehistoric behaviour patterns in today’s world (see also Zuk 2004).

Brains and ability: Biology is destiny?

Baron-Cohen (2003) suggests that male and female brains have evolved differently, and today
female brains can be categorised as E-brains (empathising brains) while male brains can be
categorised as S-brains (systemising brains) (figure 7.1).

7.3
 People with empathising brains are more People with systemising brains are more
prone to . . . prone to . . .

• Pick up non-verbal cues • Read non-fiction than fiction, and watch

• Discuss problems with others rather than
try to solve them alone
• Get upset at seeing animals and other
people in pain
• Get emotionally involved in films and
other people’s problems
• Enjoy caring for other people.
documentaries
• Want to know technical details about
cars and appliances
• Look at structure in music and buildings
• Engage in DIY activities
• Like games involving high degrees of
strategy.

Figure 7.1: Empathising versus systemising brains Source: Adapted from Baron-Cohen (2003).

Reduced levels of empathy can lead to greater aggression; increased levels of empathy can
lead to better communication skills. Baron-Cohen suggests that different individuals have
different mixes of empathy and systemising, although individuals do seem to specialise in one
or the other. (Interestingly, he suggests that the male tendency to systemise and classify, and
to score low on empathy and regard for others, leads to extreme male brain autism and
Asperger syndrome, most sufferers of which are male.)
Cameron takes Baron-Cohen and the essentialists to task here, suggesting that we are
merely hearing a very old story of ‘separate spheres’ of accomplishment and genetic program-
ming, and of ‘different but equal’. Such comforting dichotomies, she suggests, invokes that
cosy weasel word of our times, ‘diversity’ (see chapter 16, ‘Intercultural communication’,
pp. 533–5), and have in the past led to such ‘separate spheres’ as the women’s anti-suffrage
movement (allowing women to vote would upset the natural order of things) and apartheid
(not allowing black and white South Africans to mix).
Cameron (2007) also sees the essentialism of Baron-Cohen and others as quite patronising
to men: seeing them as bullies, or as Neanderthals sulking in their caves. She remarks,
sardonically:

Perhaps men have realised that a reputation for incompetence can sometimes work to your
advantage. Like the idea that they are no good at housework, the idea that men are no good
at talking serves to exempt them from doing something which many would rather leave to
women anyway (Cameron 2007, p. 11).

Kimura (1999) argues that there are clearly discernible differences in ability, often closely
linked to hormonal levels, such as:
• Males score better on mathematical ability and spatial ability than females.
• Males are very much better at most kinds of targeting abilities, such as dart throwing and
ball catching (although homosexual men have targeting abilities not significantly better
than women’s).
Communicating in the 21st Century

• Females score better than males on verbal memory and fluency.

• Females score better than males on fine motor skills.
What might such differences mean, however? Kimura notes:

Some people believe that knowing more about sex differences in abilities will put women at
a special disadvantage, since it is currently true that the largest established differences we
know about favour men. Radical feminists are prone to the view that knowledge of sex
differences should be suppressed. They suggest that the lower representation of women in
the sciences, especially in the physical sciences and mathematics, is due primarily to the

7.4
 tendency to ‘gender’ occupations. They feel that accepting the reality of certain sex
differences in cognitive function provides an excuse for keeping women out of science and
math fields, notwithstanding the explanations for the smaller numbers of women in the
physical sciences . . .
Some people have argued that the gendering of science, and hence the disadvantaging of
women, begins early, in high school or before. Their solution is to encourage women to take
more science and math courses, so that they later qualify for positions in related fields.
Simple encouragement, of course, is not a bad thing; but if it takes the form of making people
act out of a sense of duty, or causes them to feel guilty about their life choices, we must
question the use, and the ethics, of such pressures. [Researchers] report that even the girls
in their highly math-talented samples often had more person-oriented interests than did the
boys, so that they might not enter fields in which math is critical. It is begging the question
to insist that their choices are mostly due to societal influences. (Kimura 1999, p. 184)

Crawford and Chaffin (1997) and Fausto-Sterling (2001) contest much of the ‘different
brains and abilities’ approaches, suggesting that the data does not in fact bear out many dif-
ferences at all. Bing (1999) argues that:

. . . reports of scientific research first show differences between groups and then, with no
explanation, equate difference with deficit or inferiority, a ready-made explanation for
limiting the opportunities of girls and women. This is a successful strategy because when
one myth about biological essentialism becomes discredited, a new one can be quickly
found to replace it. Current arguments for essential differences between the sexes (and, by
implication, the inferiority of females) can be found in reports of brain research. What is
troubling about current discoveries of differences between male and female brains is not
the research itself, but the way this information is reported, distorted, and widely
disseminated by the media and then used as a justification for discrimination . . . I argue
that feminists should avoid the ‘difference debate’ altogether and suggest that the
important issue is equal opportunity, not equal ability . . . (Bing 1999, pp. 4–5)

Hyde (2005) investigated a large number of ‘inbuilt gender differences’, such as maths
ability, but also in a number of other areas (men are more aggressive, they offer helping
behaviour less often, they smile less often, girls fall behind boys in self-esteem when at
school). She found little evidence to support any of these propositions, thus strengthening
what she called ‘the Gender Similarities Hypothesis’ (see also Barnett & Rivers 2004).
Zurbriggen and Sherman (2007) claim that there is a link between political ideology and
biologically influenced views of human nature. They assert that more conservative media
tend to cover stories from a biological determinism or essentialist viewpoint, while more lib-
eral media were less essentialist and more constructivist.
They also noted that a mother’s perceptions of the difficulty in math(s) for her child pre-
dicted the child’s performance and interest in mathematics. If essentialist stories dominate the
media (e.g. girls are weak at maths), it is therefore conceivable that a type of self-fulfilling

Chapter 7 Gender and communication

prophecy or Pygmalion effect will take place. For example, in a 1960s psychology experi-
ment, primary school teachers were told that certain students had above-average abilities
(when in fact, they did not) and the marks of these students improved substantially. The
researchers in this experiment concluded that the teachers had behaved differently to the stu-
dents they believed to be ‘smarter than average’ by letting them know non-verbally and with
variations in teaching, which then produced the students’ better results. Thinking made it so,
and smarter they became (Rosenthal & Jacobson 1992).
Lippa (2002) suggests a compromise, or synthesis, of the essentialist-nature-heredity view
and the constructivist-nurture-environment view (figure 7.2). This model is not simply a weak
compromise but a demonstration of the fact that environmental and hereditary influences

7.5
 Communicating in the 21st Century

7.6
permission.
tracks of gender

Source: Lippa (2002,

complex evolution
Figure 7.2: Parallel
Prenatal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70...

p. 196). Reproduced with

development and their
Tracks of gender development
Feedback Prenatal Organisational effects Puberty and its hormonal Marriage and
loops 1. Biological/ hormones and on nervous system and physical changes parenthood, childbirth
genetic uterine
factors environment

Dress; Family roles; sibling influences Departing from family

Prenatal room decor Independence and dependence training Marriage, spouse influences, children
2. Family social Differential treatment of boys and girls
influences environment Encouragement of sex-typed play

Sex segregation; Adolescent culture College and/or work cultures

3. Peer differing cultures of boys and girls
influences

Media influences Social groups College/

4. Social university
cultural Teacher influences influences
influences School influences

Gender stereotypes
Gender schemas
Gender Internal Gender
5. Cognition/ labelling gender constancy
thought standards

Attitudes Attitudes Gender ideologies and attitudes

towards parents towards boys Sexual attractions
6. Emotions/ and girls
Attitudes and orientations
feelings/
towards siblings

Sex-typed play Sex-typed Sexual behaviours Family roles

interests Behaviour in close relationship and behaviour
7. Behaviour Gender segregation
feed back into each other all the time, often making it impossible to clearly assign one
extreme pattern of causation or another. Examples of such feedback include (Lippa 2002,
pp. 197–200):
• Genes held in common by parents and children influence how parents treat their children
and also how children respond to their parents.
• Biological predispositions in girls and boys foster sex segregation, and conversely, sex
segregation amplifies biological predispositions in girls and boys.
• Parental socialisation moulds the way children interact with their peers.
• Peer influences determine which TV shows children watch and the resulting gender
messages children take from TV.
• Parent and teacher stereotypes influence the educational choices of boys and girls, which
then influence their subsequent occupational choices.
• Work and educational settings influence individuals’ gender stereotypes, stress levels and
even hormone levels.
• Both biological predispositions and early social learning lead to sex-typed toy preferences
in children, which in turn lead to sex differences in child–parent and child–peer interactions
and to the development of different motor skills and cognitive abilities in boys and girls.
• Individuals’ levels of sex hormones can be influenced by environments (e.g. by stress, success,
or the presence or absence of members of the opposite sex) as well as by sex chromosomes.

ASSESS YOURSELF
Consider the continuum below. The extremes are Essentialism (according to which biology/
heredity/nature determines behaviour, and gender is a concept with little value) and Constructivism
(according to which society/environment/nurture determines behaviour, and gender is a vital
concept). Place a mark on the continuum that represents your belief or point of view. Compare it
with the response of at least two other people.

Essentialism Constructivism

Gender and communication: Differences

and similarities
We have now completed a brief overview of the debate on sex and gender. Skimming the surface
of the environmental and hereditary factors will have raised more questions than it has
answered about why males and females understand and misunderstand each other. Let’s now
look at communication processes in greater detail, examining in turn spoken communication,
non-verbal communication and written communication.
These three areas, of course, overlap one another considerably. We will concentrate here on
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
real or apparent differences, but later we will consider similarities and assess the authenticity
of these differences. Further, we will speculate on whether, if differences exist, the key reason
for this might not be biological sex differences but something else entirely.

The spoken word: Talk, talk, talk

Non-written verbal communication is all about talk and the use of the voice, but it is also
about silence and the withholding of talk. So what gender differences can we identify? Let’s
begin by looking at two popular writers in the field, Deborah Tannen and John Gray. While

7.7

Genderlect: a gender-
specific dialect
Rapport talk: relationship-
oriented talk whose primary
function is to build
understanding and empathy
within a wider group
Report talk: task-oriented
talk whose primary function
is to produce solutions
Troubles talk: talking about
problems in order to share
the experience rather than
necessarily to generate a
solution
Communicating in the 21st Century
Relational bullying:
aggression towards others
that does not involve
physical violence
7.8
not without their critics (e.g. Peterson 2000), these writers have done much to make the idea
of gender and communication part of everyday discourse.
Genderlects: Rapport talk and report talk
Tannen (1990, 1995, 2002) suggests that women and men talk in different genderlects, or
gender-specific dialects (see also Loosemore & Galea 2008). Women tend to engage in rapport
talk, or relationship-oriented talk, whose primary function is to build understanding and
empathy within a wider group. By contrast, she argues, men tend to engage in report talk, or
task-oriented talk, whose primary function is to produce solutions to problems. She suggests,
in fact, that inter-gender communication is a form of intercultural communication (see
chapter 16, ‘Intercultural communication’; see also Basow & Rubenfeld 2003).
One particular type of rapport talk, suggests Tannen, is troubles talk:
Ordinary troubles provide fodder for conversation that helps speakers think about life’s
challenges — not just to find a solution (though it can certainly do that) but as a kind of
philosophical investigation: How do others deal with situations like this? What is the best
way to think about them? Most of all, just talking this way creates connection.
A problem does not have to be overwhelming for a woman to bring it up for discussion; any
problem can make a good topic by providing an opportunity to reaffirm mutual interest and
connection. But many men assume that if someone brings up a problem, it must be serious.
One woman complained daily about situations at work; her son said, ‘If you hate your job so
much, why don’t you quit?’ She was puzzled; she liked her job. He misinterpreted her run-
of-the-mill stresses and strains as serious complaints because he would not talk about
them unless they were major problems he wanted to solve. (Tannen 2002, p. 126)
Troubles talk, then, while appearing to present a problem for solution, is really an exercise
in solidarity and sharing of experience.
Misunderstandings between males and females may therefore be the result of the collision
between troubles talk and report talk, or the predisposition of males to provide solutions to
any complaint. The presentation of those solutions can be misperceived by some women as
the male not listening (see Gray’s ‘Mr Fix-It’ on page 7.9).
Troubles talk can be interpreted by males as unproductive whining; feminist writers assert
the consciousness-raising benefits of ‘bitching’ as a means of expressing emotion in
bureaucratic environments — where the suppression of emotion is part of a broader system of
control — and also of expressing the resistance of those who are less powerful.
Rapport, aggression, indirect communication and
relational bullying
Are women then intrinsically non-aggressive, especially towards other women? Are all
female-to-female interactions primarily concerned with forming extended networks of rap-
port and support? Not at all. While the evidence that males are more physically violent
than females is overwhelming (Baron-Cohen 2003), physically violent and aggressive
women are not unknown. Perhaps of greater interest, however, are subtler types of violence,
especially those inflicted by females on other females. For example, relational bullying, a
common female-to-female behaviour pattern, can involve insults, teasing, the silent treat-
ment, note-passing, glaring, gossiping, ganging up, criticism of appearance and inconsistent
behaviour (e.g. being nice in private but mean in public) (Goodwin 2002; Simmons 2002).
Tannen has noted similar indirect aggressive tactics, such as repeating a critical remark
made by someone else (‘with the for-your-own-good introduction “I think you should

‘Mr Fix-It’ syndrome: the
predisposition of males to
offer solutions to problems
and complaints rather than
to show empathy towards
the complainant
know” ’), and offering ‘helpful’ suggestions and mixed-stroke-type compliments (‘ “your
presentation was excellent. It was much easier to follow than your last one” ’) (Tannen
1990, pp. 172–4). Women can sometimes be harsher on each other than men are (Trethewey
1999), and can be more aggressive than males in the race to succeed in organisations (Hol-
lands 2001).
To the extent that these behaviours are typical, they may confirm the contention that
many females have traditionally been taught to suppress conflict and assertive, direct com-
munication, and thus have had little alternative but to communicate in indirect passive or
passive-aggressive (manipulative) styles. Of course, traditions are culture-specific: some
communities are more open in the way they handle conflict than the Anglo-American cul-
tures where most of the gender and communication research has been done, and within
those cultures women often give as well as they get.
ASSESS YOURSELF
Interview at least two males and two females on the topic of bullying. Do the accounts vary
according to gender?
Martians, Venusians and communication
When John Gray (1992) suggested that ‘men are from Mars, women are from Venus’, he was
humorously alluding to the communication difficulties males and females often experience.
Among these differences he identifies the following:
• Men prefer to brood and stew over problems and daily experiences in private (‘retreating
to their caves’), whereas women like to talk about them.
• Women like to talk about problems, often in detail, because they seek empathy and
because it helps to talk them through, whereas men may simply try to offer solutions (the
‘Mr Fix-It’ syndrome).
• Women offer advice and constructive criticism (‘The Office Improvement Committee’) as an
act of love, whereas men may feel that women are trying to change them.
• Women approach problems in an involved, intuitive fashion, whereas men tend to be more
detached and less intuitive.
These differences, he suggests, often cause communication breakdown, leading to conflict
and misunderstanding:
When women talk about their problems, men lose points by interrupting and giving instant
solutions. Women perceive this as a message that her male colleague does not care. The
Office Improvement Committee refers to women’s tendencies to improve things, look
around and make suggestions. This eagerness to please often turns men off. For example,
if a woman says ‘you should clean up this office,’ her intention may be to help, but what the
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
man hears is criticism . . .
Women value caring, cooperation, collaboration, consensus, consideration and
communication. Men value the bottom line, efficiency, effectiveness, accomplishment,
achievement, independence and autonomy . . .
There is a communication barrier because male and female hormones are different. In the
workplace there are different reactions to stress. There are certain things that make men
feel comfortable, certain things that make women comfortable. It’s as if we come from
planets with different languages. Men and women share the same words, so they think
they are being heard, but they are not. So they might feel disappointed and betrayed when
7.9
 they don’t get what they want. A woman on her planet will share feelings as a way of
bonding or relieving stress. For example, a woman might say ‘what a crazy day it has been
today.’ A man might look at her and think ‘why is she complaining?’ The man, instead of
hearing a plea for emotional support, responds with a solution or makes a comment. He is
not empathetic. A separation, rather than a connection, occurs between the two. (Gray,
quoted in Casison 2002)

Within both personal and professional realms of experience, crossed wires may lead to
frustration and anger. Such misunderstandings can be aggravated when men and women are
working under pressure: they may use the same words but in quite different ways, their
language embedded in different sets of assumptions.
Gray’s work has been extremely influential, but has attracted criticism that verges on the
ferocious. In studying the rapid and wide spread use of the ‘Mars/Venus (M/V) metaphor’,
Noonan (2007) draws upon Richard Dawkin’s idea of a ‘meme’ — something which is to cul-
ture what the gene is to biology — a unit of information with the ability to reproduce itself
(Blackmore & Dawkins 2000).
M/V dichotomies are often nothing whatever to do with gender, and yet have become part
of common discourse.
Buzzard (2002) points out that when Gray — ‘the Coca-Cola of psychology’ — produced the
first version of the Mars/Venus book in 1993, it was a relative failure, as it was a data-heavy,
self-published book. It was only after several years and sales had reached 50 000 that com-
mercial publishers showed interest in mass publication. Part of the marketing strategy was to
make Gray a brand, with a series of related products, such as television, audiovisuals, films,
CD-ROMs and games. In other words, Buzzard puts much of the Gray phenomenon down to
marketing genius:

Why did Gray’s book, written in the eighties, fail to catch fire until the nineties? Gray’s
repackaging of the traditional gender types would seem to have captured the public
imagination and sensibility of this era, puzzling scholars, reviewers and many readers alike.
Is there a massive cultural need to hear that relationships between the sexes are so simple
and so traditional? . . . Whether its success represents a backlash against changes in male–
female relationships or illuminates important gender differences depends on the reader. At
the heart of both of these beliefs is the assumption that demand automatically creates
supply, that audiences get what they want, that Men Are From Mars, Women Are From
Venus reflects the values, interests, and characteristics of its audience. However, it is
pointless to speak of some vast cultural zeitgeist or psyche at work at a particular moment
in history, which creates popular reception of a work when ordinary business factors
suffice. (Buzzard 2002, p. 90)

Gray’s work has proven to be spectacularly popular, and has done much to stimulate
discussion of gender/communication differences. Critics, however, have taken him to task for
overemphasising differences between genders, for being too far to the essentialist end of the
gender spectrum and for prescribing quick-fix solutions to complex human problems (Wood
Communicating in the 21st Century

2002; Buzzard 2002).

Thus, Zimmerman, Haddock and McGeorge (2001) take Gray to task because he mishandles
the negotiation of power in relationships:

The book’s unprecedented sales are an indication that Gray’s . . . descriptions must have
some degree of familiarity among the public and many therapists. However, Gray’s basic
thesis — that men and women are instinctively different in all areas of life — and his
recommendations for dealing with these differences serve to reinforce and encourage
power differentials between men and women, thereby eroding the possibility of deep

7.10
 friendship and sustained intimacy in their relationships. As mentioned, this position is
counter to a growing body of research that underscores the importance of shared power
for achieving an intimate and effective relationship. (Zimmerman, Haddock & McGeorge
2001, p. 63)

Gender communication is a field in its infancy: who knows what we will know in twenty
years? Better communication techniques? Increased insight into the similarities between inter-
cultural and gender communication? The knowledge that there is no such thing as gender
communication, only interpersonal? Stay tuned.

Other speech differences between males and

females
Bearing in mind certain limitations (for example, most research on gender communication
has been conducted among white, middle-class Americans), some generalisations about
gender-specific speech can be attempted (table 7.1).

Table 7.1: Gender differences in spoken communication

Characteristic Differences

Voice pitch Women tend to have higher-pitched voices, which may be a liability in societies that associate a deep
voice with authority, gravitas and credibility. Some women in powerful situations (politicians,
newsreaders) may sometimes deliberately pitch their voices lower to counteract such a perceived
disadvantage.

Inflection Females may be more prone to high-rising tone (HRT), or upward inflection within sentences. Males
and females both upwardly inflect at the end of question sentences in order to evoke a response, but
inflecting several times within a sentence can suggest uncertainty and low assertiveness.

Tone Men may have more monotonous speech: males tend to use approximately three tones when
speaking, while females tend to use approximately five tones.

Emphasis Men tend to use loudness to emphasise points, while females tend to use pitch and inflection to
emphasise points.

Pronunciation and Men tend to use sloppier pronunciation, mumbling more than women.
enunciation

Grammar and Women tend to use more precise grammar in speech than men do, and may be more likely to correct
hypercorrection the usage of others.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication

Fillers and discourse Men more than women tend to use speech fillers (‘like’, ‘um’, ‘er’ etc.).
particles

Delivery Men tend towards choppy and staccato delivery, while women tend towards more breathy and
flowing delivery.

Descriptions Men tend to describe colours broadly (‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘brown’), while women tend to use subtler
descriptors (‘turquoise’, ‘chartreuse’, ‘bone’).

7.11
 Table 7.1 (continued)

Characteristic Differences

Diminutives and Women may use diminutives (‘chocky bicky’, ‘Chrissy pressy’) and euphemisms (‘powder my nose’)
euphemisms more often than men.

Aggression Men may be more likely to use profanity/obscenity, and to use teasing insults and playful put-downs
either as indicators of affection and intimacy or as threatening and controlling behaviour.

Interruptions and Men tend to interrupt women more than vice-versa. Interrupting can be a form of expressing
overlaps dominance, and male-to-female interruption patterns tend to be of this kind. However, things are not
that simple. Tannen (1994) notes that in all-female groups interruption levels can be higher than in
mixed groups, but that these interruptions may be of a different type: she prefers to use the term
‘overlap’, because a person can speak while another is talking, not to change the topic or to attack
the speaker, but in support — to establish rapport rather than assert power or disagreement.

Turn taking When a person is waiting to speak, he or she generally waits for the other person to stop talking.
Males tend to wait shorter times before speaking. This can lead females to think that males are pushy
and uninterested, and males to think that females don’t have much to contribute.

Hedging Females more than males tend to use qualifying or hedging phrases (‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, ‘you know’,
‘in my opinion’, ‘it seems to me’).

Expressive forms Women may make more use of expressive forms (‘lovely’, ‘beautiful’, ‘sad’, ‘divine’ — adjectives,
rather than nouns or verbs, particularly those expressing emotional rather than intellectual
evaluation) than men.

Intensifiers or Men tend to use quantifiers (‘always’, ‘never’, ‘all’, ‘none’), while women tend to use qualifiers (‘kind
boosters of’, ‘a bit’).

Questions Males may be more likely to interpret conversations as win–lose contests in which you are either one
up or one down. Males may be more likely to see questions as admissions of ignorance and therefore
a one-down strategy. Females may be more likely to see questions as neutral information seeking or as
rapport building. Some males may see female questioning as a sign of incompetence and uncertainty.

Credit claiming Males may be more likely to take credit for their own achievements and even for the achievements of
others. Bragging rituals are important in some male groups. Males may be more likely to use the
singular pronoun ‘I’ than the plural ‘we’. Females may have traditionally been more reticent in claiming
credit, although this is changing in some professional circles.
Communicating in the 21st Century

Indirect expression Women tend to use a more indirect style than men. This can be out of tact and implicit communication
or to avoid conflict.

Feedback Women may provide more feedback (both verbal and non-verbal) in conversation. In professional
situations, women may be prone to use more comprehensive but less direct feedback than males.
This can sometimes lead to males feeling that females have missed the point, and for females to feel
that males aren’t listening.

7.12
Characteristic Differences

Tag questions Females may sometimes be more prone to make tentative statements using ‘tag endings’ after making
declarative statements, or to use upward inflections that make statements sound like questions (‘It’s a
nice day, isn’t it?’ or ‘It’s a nice day?’). Males are more prone to make declarative statements (‘It’s a
nice day.’). Tags may sometimes be used to include others and to elicit agreement. Both males and
females do this.

Ritual opposition Men may be more prone to engage in ritual opposition in arguments, while not being too emotionally
involved in the conflict or its aftermath.

Shifts Men may be more likely to change the topic than women. Women may be more likely to use
conjunctions when changing topics (‘however’, ‘but’, ‘and’), while men may be more likely to use
interjections (‘Oh’, ‘By the way’, ‘Listen’).

Apologies Males may be less likely than females to apologise. Males may be more likely than females to see
apologies as a one-down strategy, i.e. an admission of weakness.

Frame of reference In arguments, females may be more prone than males to bring up things from the past rather than
stick to the present matter of contention.

Compliments Females tend to express compliments more easily than males. Males may be more likely to infer
manipulative intent from compliments.

Anger release Men may be more prone to yell, shout and swear to release anger, while women may be more prone
to cry.

Topics Men may be more prone to talk about things and activities such as cars, sports, jobs and mechanical
things, while women may be more prone to talk about people, relationships, clothes, feelings and children.

Requests Men may be more likely to make command or direct requests, using imperative verbal mood (‘Come
here’), while women may be more likely to make compound requests or ‘wimperatives’, sometimes
using subjunctive verbal mood (‘Please come here’, ‘If you could come here now, I’d be able to show
you what’s wrong’).

Sources: Adapted from Lakoff (1990); Glass (1992); Tannen (1990, 1994); Gray (1992); Dolan and Kropf (2004);
Lizzio, Wilson, Gilchrist and Gallois (2003); DeCapua and Boxer (1999); Siegel (2002); Holmes (1995).

Chapter 7 Gender and communication

Body talk: Non-verbal communication
Non-verbal communication or body language is a significant aspect of gender communi-
cation (see chapter 9). Two anecdotes may help to sketch out some of the factors at work in
this arena (Cameron 2000):
• A fast-food chain created a ‘script’ that all employees had to follow when farewelling
diners; this involved certain words and a ‘cheery wave’. Some male employees found the
wave gesture ‘effeminate’ and rebelled by turning the wave into a quasi-salute.

7.13
 • A supermarket chain created a ‘superior service’ program that required employees to show
customers friendliness, a personal interest and eagerness to please. A group of female
workers complained at a union conference that male customers were misinterpreting this
as indicating ‘romantic interest’ and inviting ‘lewd behaviour’.
Some apparent gender differences in non-verbal communication are outlined in table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Gender differences in non-verbal communication

Characteristic Differences

Personal space Males tend to take up more personal space than females when seated: they may sprawl, their legs
wide, and may set up territorial markers (books, equipment) more quickly than women. Males are
more easily stressed by crowding.

Approach and Women may be approached more closely than men. When males and females are forced into close
orientation proximity, males will tend to brush past by turning towards the female, while females will turn away
from the male.

Orientation Women may prefer to interact side by side, while men may prefer to interact face to face.

Volume response Males may be less likely than females to stand back from a person who is talking loudly.

Arm gestures A Women may keep their arms close to their body, while men hold their arms about 5–10 degrees away
from the body.
Women tend to use limp wrist and arm flapping gestures more than men.

Arm gestures B Men may be more likely to use two-armed gestures and less likely to use one-armed gestures than
women. Male gestures tend to be more forceful, angular and restricted, while female gestures are
more likely to be fluid, easy and light.

Arm gestures C Women may be more likely to keep their hands down on a chair than men. Women may play with their
hair or clothing, place their hands in their lap, and drum their fingers more frequently than men. Men
may use sweeping hand gestures, stretching the hands, cracking the knuckles, pointing, and using
arms to lift the body from a chair or table more frequently.

Hand gestures Males may be more likely to gesture with their fingers together or by pointing, while females may be
more likely to gesture with their fingers apart and using curved hand gestures.

Leg gestures A Males may be more likely to have their legs apart, at a 10–15 degree angle. Men may be more likely to
jog their knees and tap their toes nervously, while women may be more likely to drum their fingers.

Leg gestures B Women tend to cross their legs at the knees or cross their ankles with their knees slightly apart, while men
tend to sit with their legs apart or with their legs stretched out in front of them and their ankles crossed.

Posture A Women tend to walk with their pelvis pushed slightly forward, while men tend to walk with their pelvis
rolled slightly back.
Communicating in the 21st Century

Posture B Women may be more prone to move their entire body from neck to ankles as one entity when they
walk, while men tend to move their arms independently and exhibit a slight twist in their rib cage.

Posture C Males tend to assume more reclined positions when seated, while women tend to assume more
forward positions. Men tend to fidget and shift their body position more than women do. Men tend to
be more relaxed, while women tend to be more tense or alert.

Body lean Women tend to lean their bodies less than men, while men tend to lean backward more.

7.14
Characteristic Differences

Touching A Men tend to touch others less than women do. Men tend to perceive touching as an instrumental
behaviour leading to sexual activity or as childish behaviour indicative of dependency and lack of
manliness. Females may be more likely to view touch as an expressive behaviour which demonstrates
warmth and affiliation.

Touching B Men are less likely than women to engage in same-sex touching. Male same-sex touching tends to
take the form of play fighting, triumph displays, backslapping or crushing handshakes.

Listening Men tend to frown and squint when listening, while women tend to smile and head-nod when
listening. Men tend to cock their head to one side and look obliquely at the person talking, while
women tend to look directly at the person talking.

Facial expressions A Men tend to suppress facial expressiveness and plasticity more than women; women tend to have
more animated expressions.

Facial expressions B Women tend to smile more than men. Men may smile less when there are other men around. Men
may be less likely to return a smile than women. Women may be more attracted than men are to
others who smile. Males who are more androgynous (sharing characteristics of stereotypical male
and female extremes) may tend to smile more than males who are more stereotypically masculine;
and more androgynous females may smile less than females who are more stereotypically feminine.

Jaw Men may tend to open their jaw less than women do when speaking.

Facial gesture As males age, they may become less adept than females in suppressing leakage of emotions when
leakage lying.

Eye contact Women may establish more eye contact than men do, but men may be more likely to stare while
women may be more likely to avert their gaze. Female–female interaction is likely to involve much
more eye contact than male–male interaction.

Locomotion Men may be more likely than women to walk around when talking.

Artefacts Males are more likely to use a one-handed grip to carry books or objects at their side while females
are more likely to use a two-handed grip to carry books or objects against their chests.

Clothing Males tend to dress to avoid disapproval, while women tend to dress to win approval. Men tend to
wear darker colours and coarser textures than women.

Adornment Women are more likely to groom and adorn themselves to emphasise smooth and nubile qualities
(makeup, body hair reduction), while males may be more inclined to groom themselves to emphasise
coarseness and toughness (facial hair, self-mutilation through piercing and tattoos).

Body awareness There is greater cultural pressure for females than males to appear more fit and less fat. Females are Chapter 7 Gender and communication
more prone to take radical action to modify their body shapes.

Responsiveness and Overall, women tend to be more responsive than men in non-verbal communication, and tend to be
awareness more sensitive to the non-verbal communication of others — both when non-verbal messages
reinforce verbal messages and when they contradict non-verbal messages . Men may be harder to
‘read’, providing less non-verbal feedback.

Sources: Adapted from Lakoff (1990); Glass (1992); Tannen (1990, 1994); Gray (1992); Gamble and Gamble (2003);
Stewart, Cooper, Stewart and Friedley (2002); Pearson, Turner and Todd-Mancillas (1995); Trethewey (1999).

7.15
 The written word: Men and women writing
Let’s now move from the spoken word and non-verbal communication to the written word.
As already noted, the degree of overlap and interaction between these forms of communi-
cation can be very considerable, but it is nonetheless analytically useful to consider them
separately. We will look at two aspects of written language — the question of female versus
male style, and the broader question of whether the historical evolution of language has
biased or loaded the language in favour of one gender or the other.

Male and female registers?

Do men and women write in different ways? Are there uniquely male and female styles or
registers? Although this might at first seem unlikely, there is some evidence to support the
case. Studies of email content suggest that female writers concentrate more on relationship
than task topics, using the channel to build rapport and maintain friendship and kin
networks, in ways similar to those used in face-to-face and telephone conversation (Boneva,
Kraut & Frohlich 2001; Colley & Todd 2002). Comparisons of graffiti in female and male
toilets reflect this tendency: graffiti in female toilets tends to be more polite and interactive,
while that in male toilets is more argumentative and negative (Green 2003).
Statistical analysis of fiction and non-fiction texts reveals similar trends, with female
writers tending to use a more personal or involved style (particularly evident in the use of
pronouns), while male writers seem to use a more informational and detached style. A corre-
lation has even been made between male style and non-fiction genres, on the one hand, and
female style and fiction writing on the other (Argamon, Koppel, Fine & Shimoni 2003).

Man-made? Unloading language and becoming

inclusive
Spender (1990) and others have argued that language is ‘man-made’ — that is, because males
have historically exercised power over females, language itself reveals loaded or biased
structures. Examples include the use of generic pronouns, generic nouns or titles, spotlighting,
diminutivisation, differential naming and featurism, all of which appear to suggest a world in
which females play secondary roles to males (Romaine 2000; Goddard & Patterson 2000)
(table 7.3). Such patterns, of course, occur in many languages other than English.

Table 7.3: Biased or Phenomenon Example Analysis

loaded language
phenomena
Generic pronoun: using the
masculine pronouns ‘he’
and ‘his’ in all situations,
irrespective of the gender
of those referred to
Communicating in the 21st Century
Generic pronoun ‘If a ratepayer wants to pay this in person, Embodies assumption that both
he must bring payment to the Council females and males can be
Offices payment desk.’ adequately described by a
male pronoun.
Generic noun or • chairman Historically, these roles or
title • man-made associations related to men;

• manpower social changes are not

Generic noun or title: using
nouns or titles with male
• foreman necessarily reflected in title
connotations in all • salesman changes.
situations, even when Spotlighting • lady doctor The use of an adjective draws
females are involved
• male nurse attention to a role adoption that
Spotlighting: using a • male prostitute challenges a gender-role
modifier to draw attention • career girl stereotype.
to a role adoption that
challenges a gender-role • male model
stereotype • woman priest

7.16

Diminutivisation: attaching
diminutive suffixes to
names, implying
childishness, lower status
or affection
Differential naming: using
family names and titles for
males and first names for
females
Featurism: drawing
attention to the personal
rather than role
characteristics of female
office-holders
Phenomenon Example Analysis
Diminutivisation • actress Roles and names are formed by
• authoress adding lower-status and/or
• mayoress affectionate suffixes to titles
• Charlotte and names.
• Paulette
Differential ‘Mr Smith [the men from Accounts] and Males may be referred to by
naming Jenny [the girls from Marketing] want to see adults titles, while females may
you.’ be referred to by pre-adult
titles.
Featurism ‘Joe Breeze was today sworn in as President. Focus on appearance of
He vowed to introduce a new era of freedom females tends to trivialise and
and prosperity.’ demean.
‘Jo Breeze was today sworn in as President.
Sporting a smart new pageboy cut and a
mauve Armani jump suit, set off with
turquoise pearls, she vowed to introduce a
new era of freedom and prosperity.’

Gender-neutral expression
How then can we express ourselves in a more gender-neutral way in our writing? Traditional
sex or gender roles have undergone dramatic transformation in recent times, and this has
meant that we need to think more carefully when we use gender-specific language, ensuring
we have a language for humans, not just men. It makes more sense these days, therefore, to
use more inclusive language when referring to persons of either gender. Some strategies that
can be employed to create inclusiveness are shown in table 7.4.

Table 7.4: Strategies for

Rule Unrevised form
gender-neutral writing
Use a pair of A manager needs to know what his
pronouns project budget is going to be.
Just ask any nurse what she thinks
of her profession, and that might
help your career planning.
Revised form
A manager needs to know what his
or her budget is going to be.
Just ask any nurse what she or he
thinks of her or his profession, and
that might help your career
planning.

Use the slash/ The clerk will need to have a
combined form requisition form signed before he
can obtain a modem.
Recast the sentence The average student may end up
to omit the gender- spending too much of his money on
specific pronoun/s software.
The operator needs to equip himself
or herself with these protective
devices.
The clerk will need to have a
requisition form signed before s/he
can obtain a modem.
The clerk will need to have a
requisition form signed before he/
she can obtain a modem.
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
The average student may end up
spending too much money on
software.
The operator needs to become
equipped with these protective
devices.

Use imperative mood He or she can load the floppy disk. Load the floppy disk.
of verbs

7.17
 Table 7.4 (continued)

Rule Unrevised form Revised form

Replace third-person He or she must clean up the You must clean up the conference
pronouns with second- conference room at the end of each room at the end of each meeting.
person pronouns meeting.
Use plurals The modern plumber knows that he Modern plumbers know that they
cannot neglect the paperwork if his cannot neglect the paperwork if
business is to thrive. their businesses are to thrive.
He or she will find that the Z2000 Users will find that the Z2000 model
model has a number of advantages has a number of advantages when
when compared to its predecessor. compared to its predecessor.
Repeat the noun The builder will find all the traditional The builder will find all the traditional
lines of nails and screws, now in lines of nails and screws, now in
metric or SI. In fact, in converting metric or SI. In fact, in converting
from imperial measures, we have from imperial measures, we have
taken the opportunity to expand the taken the opportunity to expand the
product range, giving him or her product range, giving the builder
more, not fewer, resources. more, not fewer, resources.
Replace third-person The manager or his assistant . . . The manager or an assistant . . .
pronouns with
indefinite article (a, an)
or definite article (the)
Change second- She will need to consider her One would need to consider one’s
person pronouns to position on this. position on this.
generic pronoun
(sometimes occurs
with subjunctive) —
use sparingly)
Change a nominal to a A person who has in his possession A person who possesses such
verbal expression such prohibited substances will in prohibited substances will in fact
fact have broken the law. have broken the law.
Change if … then If a staff member uses the scanner A staff member who uses the
clauses to who/ in such a manner, then he will scanner in such a manner will
which/that clauses damage it. damage it.
Change if … when When the manager has completed Upon completing this procedure, the
clauses to on/upon this procedure, he should have the manager should have the blue form
phrases, or modifiers blue form witnessed by another witnessed by another person.
without expressed person.
subjects
Recast restricting/ • chairman • chair, chairperson
spotlighting names, • manhole • access hatch
Communicating in the 21st Century

titles and roles • man-made • artificial, synthetic, constructed

• manpower • human resources, workforce
• foreman • supervisor, team leader
• salesman • sales person, representative
• shopgirl • staff member, salesperson
• actress • actor
• authoress • author
• woman/female/lady doctor • doctor

Source: Adapted from Corbett (1990); and Troyka and Hesse (2007).

7.18
 ASSESS YOURSELF
Rewrite the following passage, making it more gender-neutral. You may need to re-cast sentences.
Consult online chapters 1 to 4 for clarification of some technical terms.

The typical accountant today needs to have his wits about him when it comes to software. While his
forefathers may have been satisfied with ink and paper records, the accountant with his eye on future
trends knows that such a ‘hard copy’ approach is simply too inflexible. He must be able to manipulate
data electronically, and his data must be compatible with other software packages. If, for example,
his spreadsheet and data base files cannot be smoothly integrated with his assistant’s word
processing package, then she will not be able to quickly and flawlessly integrate text and data into
meaningful reports. The professional man of the future must understand these technological matters,
or else he will end up on the organisational scrapheap.

Styles of communication and conflict

Let’s now move back to the more general areas of communication to further pursue the con-
cepts of gender conflict and misunderstanding.
Tannen, Gray and others suggest that males tend to see life as a contest, where one’s worth
has to be continually reasserted and defended against assault. This can mean a competitive
rather than a cooperative approach to problem solving. Non-physical contests, such as
arguments or negotiations, may become combative or antagonistic, with men seeing them as
arenas for using language or logic as a weapon, and experiencing the thrill of a contest. This
win–lose, zero-sum game mentality interprets life as a struggle to gain hierarchical dominance
(see chapter 14, ‘Negotiation skills’, p. 441 and chapter 15, ‘Conflict management’, p. 484).
Females, some researchers contend, experience reality in quite a different way, approaching
disputes as an opportunity to seek cooperation (Gray suggests that many females have been
socialised into a lose–win or sacrifice mentality). With men and women assuming diametri-
cally opposed mind-sets, misunderstandings and confusion can arise, some examples of
which are shown in table 7.5.

Table 7.5: Male versus Incident Analysis

female approaches to
conflict A female doctor had approached a male hospital
administrator and simply described what she
needs by way of space. The administrator gave
her only part of what she wanted. She is
annoyed; he is perplexed that she is annoyed.
In a venture capital firm a male negotiator,
returning after putting together a deal, said he
had brought home another pelt. A female
negotiator at the same firm saw the same
acquisition as completing a process that
welcomed the new company into the community.
Male and female students ask questions of a
female lecturer. The lecturer finds the females’
questions charming, but finds the males’
questions cheeky. The lecturer tells her husband
of her views, but he supports the male students.
The administrator treated the doctor as he
would any other staff member. He presumed her
request was merely an artificially inflated
opening bid in a negotiating ritual; she thought it
was a straightforward rational process.
The male sees the acquisition in terms of a
hunting metaphor, a win–lose situation; the
female sees it from a cooperative, win–win
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
perspective.
The husband thought it natural to challenge an
expert. The female lecturer, like the females in
the class, thought that access to an expert was
a chance to learn inside information and make
personal contact.

Sources: Adapted from Tannen (1990) and Kolb (1992).

7.19
 There may be profound biological and historical reasons to explain this male combative-
ness, although it may be based on personal insecurity as much as a perception of objective
threats. Whether this mentality transfers to workplace success is another matter. Although it
is routine now for people to endorse ‘aggressive’ business strategies, hyper-competitive
behaviour does not always pay off. According to Tannen, ‘studies show that women and men
who have been successful in the traditionally male fields of business and science are not very
competitive. Rather, they excel in “work competence” or “work mastery.” They simply do their
jobs extremely well’ (1990, p. 181).
Women are defining new roles and new ways of behaving, from car saleswomen learning
how to ‘attack nicely’ to women executives endeavouring to make workplaces less hostile and
more cooperative (Lawson 1994; Portello & Long 1994). It has also been suggested that
formal and ritualised conflict resolution systems such as the adversarial courts system and
union–management grievance procedures are more likely to be used by men, whereas women
may prefer ‘softer’ systems such as mediation (Astor & Chinkin 2002) (see chapter 15, p. 498).
These developments are interesting, although we have to be careful of replacing one sexist
view (‘Women are unassertive, manipulative and bitchy’) with another (‘A world run by
women politicians and managers would automatically be a more peaceful and equitable
place’). It may be that it is not sex or gender traits that determine approaches to conflict but
rather role expectations: if a manager is rewarded for being a hostile bully, then a female
manager appointed to the role will be under pressure to adopt similar methods; if a negotiator
receives praise and prestige for being assertive and aggressive, then a female negotiator is
likely to follow this lead (Power 1994).

Gender and communication: The state of play

We have covered a lot of ground in our consideration of gender and communication. The key
questions remain: Are there any real differences between male and female styles of commu-
nicating, and if there are, are they best explained by the constructionist (environment/
nurture) model or the essentialist (heredity/nature) model?
We can interpret the evidence we have discussed so far in a number of ways. Let’s consider
each of them now.

1. The differences are about power, not gender

Some analysts of gender and communication concede that there are differences in the way
people in general communicate, but that these differences are best explained not by sex or
gender but by power, context and the roles people play. Thus, communication patterns such
as politeness, tag questions, hedges and deferential non-verbal communication are not unique
to females but are used by people, irrespective of gender, in powerless or low-power
situations, such as inexperienced court witnesses, unemployed persons, assembly-line
workers, uneducated persons or servants (Hopper 2003, p. 184; Mills 2003, p. 205). Norms of
Communicating in the 21st Century

politeness and courtesy may be a class phenomenon (Mills 2003). Crawford (1995) suggests
that assertiveness training is fundamentally wrong-headed because it merely confirms the
‘woman-as-problem’ view, creating a set of techniques to mask the underlying reality of the
lack of power that most women have in the roles to which they are restricted (see chapter 9,
‘Interpersonal skills 1: emotional intelligence, self-talk and assertiveness’, p. 295).
Males raping and harassing females is often more about power than about sex, and
concerns have been expressed that ‘miscommunication theory’ — the idea that men and
women speak in such different languages that communication breakdown is inevitable — may
be used to rationalise male assaults (Frith & Kitzinger 1997).

7.20
2. There are no or few real differences anyway
Crawford and Chaffin (1997) argue that disproportionate attention is paid to differences (some
of which are trivial anyway) and not enough attention to similarities. Romaine (2000) and
Hyde (2005) argue that there are few, if any, context-independent gender differences in
language.

3. The differences are real, but will unfair use be

made of them?
Fears have also been expressed that demonstrating widespread and systematic differences
between men and women communicating might not necessarily be a good thing, especially
for women. If there are differences, and the dominant norms relate to males, does that suggest
that the ‘problem’ is women’s perceived inadequacies in direct communication (Weatherall
2002)? Might perceived differences in biology and communication style be used as excuses
for new forms of discrimination (Bing 1999)?

4. The differences are real, and they indicate a

better world (or perhaps the same old one . . .)
Evans (2000) and Hollands (2001) advise women to take note of differences between the
sexes, and then to succeed on their own terms, without sacrificing their femaleness in pursuit
of a male definition of success.
Hatcher (2003) notes that some management theorists have begun to speak of a ‘feminiza-
tion of management’, whereby women are seen to have natural advantages in a world
moving away from hierarchy, individuals and competition towards a world of flatter organ-
isations, teams and cooperation (see chapters 19, ‘Organisational communication’ and 23,
‘Team communication’). In this brave new world, emotion and the ‘soft skills’ of communi-
cation, hitherto devalued or demonised, are now seen as panaceas. This view, however, has
the potential to lead to a new form of enslavement rather than liberation:

The attention to daily practices of speaking, listening and language use and a range of
‘softening devices’, including styles of handling conflict, techniques for decision-making
and the capacity to take responsibility by connecting with others, rather than through
controlling others, shores up a particular identity for the manager as an embodied subject.
This particular set of images, or idealizations of women’s style of communication, assists in
managing an increasingly significant part of the population through the regulation of these
micro-practices in the workplace. This focus on understanding women’s ways is a
mechanism to increase the self-regulation of both men and women, by making use of
emotions in an instrumental way. (Hatcher 2003, p. 404)

Similarly, the notion that women are better suited to team interaction may lead to a
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
perpetuation of women’s inferior status (Benschop & Doorewaard 1998). Men may be adept in
picking up and using soft skills simply to consolidate their position vis-à-vis women
(Rutherford 2001) (see chapter 9, p. 258).

5. Specific communication patterns exist, but their

causes are misinterpreted
Some argue that ‘typically female’ communication patterns are not necessarily that at all, and
to the extent that they are, the causes are often misinterpreted. Tannen (1995) suggests that

7.21
 indirect communication is often used by powerful males in work situations, and no-one who
wishes to flourish alongside such males is going to misinterpret such signals. Tag questions
are not always a sign of powerlessness, and indeed are sometimes a sign of power display
(Preisler 1998) and of support and facilitation of others (Weatherall 2002). Interruption
patterns vary from situation to situation, with women interrupting men more often than vice-
versa in some settings, and with some types of interruption being supportive and collaborative
rather than hostile (Weiss & Fischer 1998).

Where to from here?

Many prescriptions for action have been proposed in this field, but if they are to work, they
need to take account of the complexities of human interaction. For example, Weiss and
Fischer (1998) consider the virtues of indirect styles of communication, noting along the way
that western female managers may in fact fare better than western male managers when
dealing with non-western, high-context cultures, where indirect rather than direct communi-
cation is favoured (although such cultures tend to be less gender-egalitarian than western
ones). On the other hand, they quote Madeline Albright, newly appointed as US Secretary of
State in 1997, who, when asked what advice she would give to ambitious women, replied,
‘Women need to interrupt’ (Weiss & Fischer 1998).
The interconnections between gender communication and intercultural communication are
extensive and interesting (see chapter 16). Tannen (1995) recalls teaching a case study about
indirect communication: the context was an aircraft cockpit, where the (male) co-pilot had
tried to suggest to the (male) pilot that the aircraft was unsafe; the pilot had ignored this indi-
rect communication and had taken off — with fatal results for all. As a result of this actual
event, airlines came to recognise the critical shortcomings of indirect communication —
irrespective of gender — and began to demand assertiveness training for all air staff. One of
Tannen’s Japanese students, however, pointed out that it would have been just as effective to
train pilots to pick up on hints. Tannen remarked:
This approach reflects assumptions about communication that typify Japanese culture,
which places great value on the ability of people to understand one another without putting
everything into words. Either directness or indirectness can be a successful means of
communication as long as the linguistic style is understood by the participants. (Tannen
1995, p. 147)
Training in assertiveness and in argumentation skills might help females to become more
adept in communicating with males (Kosberg & Rancer 2001), but the reservations about
assertiveness training by critics such as Crawford (1995) need to be borne in mind.
The overwhelming focus in the gender and communication area is on women and females,
with the common implication that men and males are either the default setting of communi-
cation or the tyrannical elite that must be overthrown. The ideological tenor of much of this
work in this area is remarkable, with vested interests and entrenched positions on all sides,
but given the rapid changes in sex and gender roles of the past few decades, such zeal is not
surprising, and to a certain extent is to be welcomed: everyone has a strong interest in the
Communicating in the 21st Century

way this is going to turn out.

As the field is a relatively new one, there may be a long way to go before the smoke clears
and we get a clearer view of reality. Indeed, we may come to the view that communication
differences can be better explained by way of other constructs (e.g. power, leadership, biology
or interpersonal skills). Perhaps the research has yet to produce its greatest insights. We will
finish by considering advice on inter-gender communication by two of the most popular
writers in the field:
As a basic guideline [for communicating with your partner]: never argue. Instead, discuss
the pros and cons of something. Negotiate for what you want but don’t argue . . .

7.22
 The differences and disagreements don’t hurt as much as the ways in which we
communicate them. Ideally an argument does not have to be hurtful; instead it can simply
be an engaging conversation that expresses our differences and disagreements. (Inevitably
all couples will have differences and disagreements at times.) But practically speaking
most couples start out arguing about one thing and, within five minutes, are arguing about
the way they are arguing.
Unknowingly, they begin hurting each other; what could have been an innocent argument,
easily resolved with mutual understanding and an acceptance of differences, escalates
into a battle. They refuse to accept or understand the content of their partner’s point of
view because of the way they are being approached. (Gray 1992, p. 151)
When one’s habitual style is not working, trying hard by doing more of the same will not
solve problems. Instead, men and women could both benefit from flexibility. Women who
avoid conflict at all costs would be better off if they learned that a little conflict won’t kill
them. And men who habitually take oppositional stances would be better off if they broke
their addiction to conflict . . .
Eventually, perhaps, men therapists — and men in therapy — learn to talk like women. This
is all to the good. Assertiveness training, on the other hand, teaches women to talk more
like men, and this too is to the good. Women and men would both do well to learn strategies
more typically used by members of the other group — not to switch over entirely, but to
have more strategies at their disposal. (Tannen 1990, pp. 187, 121–2)

Summary
In this chapter we considered the biological and cultural background of sex and gender.
Exploring the way these two terms have been used and understood, we noted that sex and
gender may be applied to the same thing or to two quite different things. Views about sex
and gender can be understood as being situated on an essentialist–constructivist continuum,
in a variant of the heredity–environment debate. We identified perceived differences in female
and male approaches to spoken, non-verbal and written communication. We explored the
basis of communication problems and conflicts between genders. We examined in particular
the ideas of the popular writers Deborah Tannen and John Gray, including genderlect, report
talk/rapport talk, trouble talk, and Mars/Venus type differences, while noting critiques of their
work. The debate about sex, gender and communication tends to revolve around one or
several of five positions — namely, the differences are about power, not gender; there are no
or few real differences; the differences are real, but unfair use can be made of them; the
differences are real, and they indicate a path to a better world (or perhaps the same old
one . . .); and specific communication patterns exist, but their causes are misinterpreted.

Student study guide

Chapter 7 Gender and communication

KEY TERMS
constructivism p. 7.2
differential naming p. 7.17
diminutivisation p. 7.17
essentialism p. 7.2
featurism p. 7.17
genderlect p. 7.8
generic noun or title p. 7.16
generic pronoun p. 7.16
‘Mr Fixit’ syndrome p. 7.9
rapport talk p. 7.8
relational bullying p. 7.8
report talk p. 7.8
spotlighting p. 7.16
troubles talk p. 7.8

7.23
 REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Are sex and gender the same thing?
2. What are the key differences between E-brains and S-brains?
3. What are the key differences between rapport talk and report talk?
4. What is relational bullying?
5. Identify at least five perceived differences in the speech behaviour of males and females.
6. Identify at least five perceived differences in the non-verbal behaviour of males and
females.
7. Identify at least three perceived differences in the writing styles of males and females.
8. Give at least two explanations of why gender is not necessarily the cause of differences in
the communication patterns of males and females.

APPLIED ACTIVITIES
1. Consider the lists of perceived differences in male and female spoken and non-verbal
communication tables 7.1 and 7.2). Create a checklist showing the categories in the lists.
Without compromising the privacy or dignity of others, use this checklist to observe males
and females in different settings (meetings, public places). Record what you perceive. Does
your data confirm or disconfirm what is in the lists?
2. Still working with the lists in tables 7.1 and 7.2, try to think of at least two other spoken
and two other non-verbal differences.
3. ‘Gender is a completely unnecessary category. Sex explains everything.’ Discuss.
4. Create a dialogue in which one person is using rapport talk and one person is using report
talk. Don’t forget to include non-verbal communication — write in non-verbal aspects as you
might do in stage directions in a script. Produce two versions of the script — one in which
communication breaks down into conflict, and one in which there is a meeting of minds.
5. Write a passage that features extensive use of generic pronouns, generic nouns or titles,
spotlighting, diminutivisation, differential naming and featurism, and then translate it,
removing these phenomena. Compare the two versions.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Mike is new to the job of area coordinator for the nurses union. He shows up on Monday
morning to address a meeting of his members at Central General, the biggest hospital in his
area. He knows that they have been unhappy with their treatment by the union head office,
especially over their claim for a salary award 30 per cent above what the union is negotiating
for. The union director, Marie Stevens, who used to work at Central General and does not
have fond memories of the nursing, medical or management staff there, said to him this
morning as he left, ‘Put your flak jacket on. Tell them what the policy is, and try to explain
Communicating in the 21st Century

to them in words of one syllable what “solidarity” and “gradual gains” mean.’
Mike sits at the table and smiles at 16 grim and suspicious female faces. Lyn Marabel, the
shop steward, begins by saying loudly, ‘If you think you can come in here as Marie’s
messenger boy, you’ve got another think coming! Here’s what we want to talk about today!’
She shoves a sheaf of paper across the table, which Mike stops by slamming his hand down
on it — perhaps harder than he had intended, as the sound reverberates through the table. A
chorus of facetious ‘Oooh!’s goes up. Lyn says, ‘Well, men are from Mars, eh? Well mister,
don’t try to intimidate us!’
What should Mike say?

7.24
REFERENCES
Ambady, Nalini, Conner, Brett & Hallahan, Mark 1999,
‘Accuracy of judgements of sexual orientation from thin
slices of behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 538–48.
Argamon, Shlomo, Koppel, Moshe, Fine, Jonathan & Shimoni,
Rachel 2003, ‘Gender, genre, and writing style in formal
written texts’, Text, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 321–46.
Astor, Hilary & Chinkin, Christine M 2002, Dispute resolution
in Australia, 2nd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney.
Barnett, Rosalind C & Rivers, Caryl 2004, ‘Men are from Earth,
and so are women. It’s faulty research that sets them
apart’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 September,
www.psychology.uiowa.edu.
Baron-Cohen, Simon 2003, The essential difference: man,
woman and the extreme male brain, Allen Lane/Penguin,
London.
Basow, Susan A, & Rubenfeld, Kimberley 2003, ‘Troubles talk’:
effects of gender and gender-typing’, Sex Roles, vol. 48.
no. 3/4, pp. 183–187.
Benschop, Yvonne & Doorewaard, Hans 1998, ‘Six of one and
half a dozen of the other: the gender subtext of Taylorism
and team-based work’, Gender, Work and Organization,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5–18.
Bing, Janet 1999, ‘Brain sex: how the media report and distort
brain research’, Women and Language, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 4–13.
Blackmore, Susan & Dawkins, Richard 2000, The Meme
Machine, Oxford University Press, New York.
Blustain, Sarah 2000, ‘The new gender wars’, Psychology
Today, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 42–9.
Boneva, B, Kraut, R & Frohlich, D 2001, ‘Using e-mail for
personal relationships: the difference gender makes’,
American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 530–49.
Browne, Kingsley 2002, Biology at work: rethinking sexual
equality, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ/
London.
Buss, David 2004, Evolutionary psychology: the new science of
the mind, 2nd edn, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Buzzard, Karen S 2002, ‘The Coca-Cola of self-help: the
branding of John Gray’s men are from Mars, women are
from Venus’, Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 35, no. 4,
pp. 89–94.
Cameron, Deborah 2000, ‘Styling the worker: gender and the
commodification of language in the globalized service
economy’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 323–47.
—— 2007, The myth of Mars and Venus, Oxford University
Press.
Campbell, Anne 2002, A mind of her own: the evolutionary
psychology of women, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New
York.
Casison, Jeanie 2002, ‘On different planets’, Incentive, vol. 176,
no. 4, pp. 16–17.
Chakrabarti, Rajesh, Jayaraman, Narayanan, & Guptu-
Mukherjee, Swasti 2005, ‘Mars–Venus marriages: culture
and cross-border M & A’, Social Science Research Network,
November 21, http://papers.ssrn.com.
Colley, Ann & Todd, Zazie 2002, ‘Gender-Linked differences in
the style and content of e-mails to friends’, Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 380–92.
Corbett, Maryann Z 1990, ‘Clearing the air: some thoughts on
gender-neutral writing, IEEE Transactions in Professional
Communication, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 2–6.
Crawford, Mary 2004, ‘Mars and Venus collide: a discursive
analysis of marital self-help psychology’, Feminism &
Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 63–79.
Crawford, Mary 1995, Talking difference: on gender and
language, Sage, London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi.
Crawford, Mary & Chaffin, Roger 1997, ‘The meaning of
difference: cognition in social and cultural context’, in
Paula J Caplan (ed.), Gender differences in human
cognition, Oxford University Press, New York.
DeCapua, Andrea & Boxer, Diana 1999, ‘Bragging, boasting
and bravado: male banter in a brokerage house’, Women
and Language, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 5–23.
DeWall, C. Nathan, & Maner, Jon K 2008, ‘High status men
(but not women) capture the eye of the beholder’,
Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 328–341.
Dolan, J & Kropf, JS 2004, ‘Credit claiming from the U.S.
house: gendered communication styles?’, Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 41–59.
Dunbar, Robin, & Barrett, Louise (eds) 2009, Oxford handbook of
evolutionary psychology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Evans, Gail 2000, Play like a man, win like a woman: what
men know about success that women need to learn,
Broadway Books, New York.
Falling Buzzard, Karen S 2002, ‘The Coca Cola of self help: the
branding of John Gray’s Men are from Mars, women are
from Venus’, Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 35, no. 4,
pp. 89–102.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne 2001, Sexing the body: gender politics
and the construction of sexuality, Basic Books, New York.
Francis, Richard C 2004, Why men won’t ask for directions: the
seductions of socio-biology, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
Frith, Hannah & Kitzinger, Celia 1997, ‘Talk about sexual
miscommunication’, Women Studies International Forum,
vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 517–28.
Gamble, Teri Kwai & Gamble, Michael 2003, The gender
communication connection, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Glass, Lillian 1992, He says, she says: closing the
communication gap between the sexes, Perigee/Penguin,
New York.
—— 2000, The complete idiot’s guide to understanding men
and women, Alpha Books, Indianapolis, IN.
7.25
 Goddard, Angela & Patterson, Lindsey Meân 2000, Language
and gender, Routledge, London/New York.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness 2002, ‘Building power asymmetries
in girls’ interaction’, Discourse and Society, vol. 13, no. 6,
pp. 715–30.
Gray, John 1992, Men are from Mars, women are from Venus:
a practical guide for improving communication and getting
what you want in your relationships, HarperCollins, New
York.
—— 2003, How to get what you want at work: a practical
guide for improving communication and getting results,
HarperCollins, New York.
Green, James A 2003, ‘The writing on the stall: gender and
graffiti’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 282–96.
Guillaume, Cécile & Pochic, Sophie 2008, ‘What would you
sacrifice? Access to top management and the work-life
balance’, Gender, Work and Organization, DOI 10.1111/
j.1468-0432.2007.00354.x
Hall, Judith A & Friedman, Gregory B 1999, ‘Status, gender
and nonverbal behavior: a study of structured interactions
between employees of a company’, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1080–91.
Harvey, Keith 2002, ‘Camp talk and citationality: a queer take
on “authentic” and “represented” utterance’, Journal of
Pragmatics, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1145–65.
Hatcher, Caroline 2003, ‘Refashioning a passionate manager:
gender at work’, Gender, Work and Organization, vol. 10,
no. 4, pp. 391–412.
Hobbs, Pamela 2003, ‘The medium is the message: politeness
strategies in men’s and women’s voice mail messages’,
Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 35, pp. 243–62.
Hollands, Jean 2001, Same game, different rules: how to get
ahead without being a bully broad, ice queen or
‘ms.understood’, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Holmes, Janet 1995, Women, men and politeness, Longman,
London.
Holmes, Janet & Meyerhoff, Miriam (eds) 2003, The handbook
of language and gender, Blackwell, London.
Homoly, Paul 1999, ‘Mars and Venus in the dental office:
different patterns of behaviour between men and women’,
Oral Health, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 59–62.
Hopper, Robert 2003, Gendering talk, Michigan State
University Press, East Lansing, IL.
Immerman, Ronald S & Mackey, Wade C 2003, ‘The feminist
paradox: an index of cultural evolution’, Journal of Social,
Communicating in the 21st Century
Political and Economic Studies, vol .28, no. 2, pp. 217–49.
Hyde, Janet Shibley 2005, ‘The gender similarities hypothesis’,
American Psychologist, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 581–592.
Iredale, Wendy, Van Vugt, Mark, and Dunbar, Robin 2008
‘Showing off in humans: male generosity as a mating
signal’, Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 386–392.
Jesperson, Otto 1922, Language: its nature, development and
origin, George Allen & Unwin, London.
7.26
Kimura, Doreen 1999, Sex and cognition, MIT Press, Boston,
MA.
Kolb, Deborah 1992, Is it her voice or her place that makes a
difference?: a consideration of gender issues in negotiation,
Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University, Kingston,
Ontario.
Koppel, Moshe, Argamon, Shlomo & Shimoni, Anat Rachel
2002, ‘Automatically categorizing written texts by author
gender’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 401–12.
Kosberg, Roberta L & Rancer, Andrew S 2001, ‘Enhancing
argumentativeness and argumentative behavior: the
influence of gender and training’, in Linda Longmire &
Lisa Merrill (eds), Untying the tongue: gender, power and
the word, Praeger, Westport, CT/London.
Krahe·, B, Waizenhöfer, E & Möller, I 2003, ‘Women’s sexual
aggression against men: prevalence and predictors’, Sex
Roles, vol. 49, no. 5–6, pp. 219–32.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach 1990, Talking power: the politics of
language in our lives, Basic Books, New York.
Lawson, HM 1994, ‘“Attacking nicely”: car saleswomen adapt
to an incompatible role’, Sociological Viewpoints, vol. 10,
no. 2, pp. 1–15.
Leap, William (ed.) 1997, Beyond the lavender lexicon:
authenticity, imagination, and appropriation in lesbian and
gay languages, Routledge, London.
Lippa, Richard A 2002, Gender, nature and nurture, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Livia, Anna & Hall, Kira (eds) 1998, Queerly phrased: language,
gender and sexuality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Lizzio, Alf, Wilson, Keithia L, Gilchrist, Jan & Gallois, Cindy
2003, ‘The role of gender in the construction and
evaluation of feedback effectiveness’, Management
Communication Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 341–79.
Loosemore, Martin & Galea, Natalie 2008, ‘Genderlect and
conflict in the Australian construction industry’,
Construction management and economics, vol. 26,
pp. 125–135.
Magma, Anna 2003, Female terror: scary women, modern
crimes, Virgin Books, London.
McGregor, Michael W & Davidson, Karina 2000, ‘Men’s and
women’s hostility is perceived differently’, Journal of
Research in Personality, vol. 34, pp. 252–61.
McHelhinny, Bonnie 2003, ‘Theorizing gender in
sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology,” in Janet
Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds), The handbook of
language and gender, Blackwell, London.
Miller, Alan S, & Kanazawa, Satoshi 2008, Why beautiful
people have more daughters: from dating, shopping, and
praying to going to war and becoming a billionaire: two
evolutionary psychologists explain why we do what we do,
Perigee, New York.
Mills, Sara 2003, Gender and politeness, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Moir, Ann 2001, Why men don’t iron: the fascinating and
unalterable differences between men and women, Citadel,
New York.
Noonan, Jo Howarth 2007, Men are from Mars, women are
from Venus: an analysis of a potential meme, Master’s
thesis, Georgia State University, http://etd.gsu.edu.
Pearson, Judy Cornelia, Turner, Lynn H & Todd-Mancillas,
William R 1995, Gender & communication, 3rd edn, Wm.
C. Brown/McGraw-Hill, Dubuque, IA/New York.
Peterson, Valerie 2000, ‘Mars and Venus: the rhetoric of sexual
planetary alignment’, Women and Language, vol. 23, no. 2,
pp. 1–8.
Pinker, Steven 2003, The blank slate: the modern denial of
human nature, Viking, New York.
Portello, JY & Long, BC 1994, ‘Gender role orientation, ethical
and interpersonal conflicts, and conflict handling styles
of female managers’, Sex Roles, vol. 31, no. 11–12,
pp. 683–701.
Power, M 1994, ‘Does a woman negotiator have to be like a
man?’, Australian Dispute Resolution Journal, vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 49–61.
Preisler, Bent 1998, ‘Deconstructing feminist linguistics’,
Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 281–95.
Quina, Kathryn, Harlow, Lisa L, Morokoff, Patricia J,
Burkholder, Gary & Deiter, Pamela J 2000, ‘Sexual
communication in relationships: when words speak louder
than actions’, Sex Roles, vol. 42, no. 7/8, pp. 523–50.
Reuther, Donald F 2003, Gaydar: the ultimate insider guide to
the gay sixth sense, Crown, New York.
Romaine, Suzanne 2000, Language in society: an introduction
to sociolinguistics, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Rosenthal, Robert, & Jacobson, Lenore 1992, Pygmalion in the
classroom, expanded edn, Irvington, New York.
Roush, Mark L 2007, ‘Lighting people are from Mars, LED folks
are from Venus’, Lighting Design and Application, vol. 37,
no. 12, pp. 57–60.
Rutherford, Sara 2001, ‘Any difference? an analysis of
gender and divisional management styles in a large
airline’, Gender, Work and Organization, vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 326–45.
Siegel, Muffy EA 2002, ‘Like: the discourse particle and
semantics’, Journal of Semantics, vol. 19, pp. 35–71.
Simmons, Rachel 2002, Odd girl out: the hidden culture of
aggression in girls, Harcourt, New York.
Sotirin, Patty 2000, ‘“All they do is bitch, bitch, bitch”:
political and interactional features of women’s office talk’,
Women and Language, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 19–26.
Spender, Dale 1990, Man-made language, 2nd edn, Routledge,
London.
Stenstrom, Eric, Stenstrom, Phillippe, Saad, Gad, &
Cheikhrouhou, Soumaya 2008, ‘Online hunting and
gathering: an evolutionary perspective on sex differences
in website preferences and navigation’, IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, vol. 51. no. 2,
pp 155–177.
Stewart, Lea P, Cooper, Pamela J, Stewart, Alan D & Friedley,
Sheryl 2002, Communication and gender, 4th edn, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, MA.
Tannen, Deborah 1990, You just don’t understand: men and
women in conversation, William Morrow and Company,
New York.
—— 1994, Talking from 9 to 5: how women’s and men’s
conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets
credit, and what gets done at work, William Morrow and
Company, New York.
—— 1995, ‘The power of talk: who get heard and why’,
Harvard Business Review, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 138–48.
—— 2002, I only say this because I love you: how the way we
talk can make or break family relationships throughout our
lives, Virago, London.
Thornhill, Randy, & Gangestad, Steven W, 2009, The
evolutionary biology of human female sexuality, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Tomlinson, Asha 2002, ‘Working on different planets’,
Canadian HR Reporter, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 3.
Trethewey, Angela 1999, ‘Disciplined bodies: women’s
embodied identities at work’, Organization Studies, vol. 20.
no. 3, pp. 423–51.
Troyka, Lynn Quitman, & Hesse, Douglas 2007, Simon &
Schuster handbook for writers, 8th edn, Simon & Schuster,
New York.
Vanfossen, Beth 1996, ‘Gender differences in communication’,
www.towson.edu.
Weatherall, Ann 2002, Gender, language and discourse,
Routledge, London/New York.
Weiss, Edmond H & Fischer, Bronwyn 1998, ‘Should we teach
women to interrupt? Cultural variables in management
communication courses’, Women in Management Review,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 37–44.
Wood, Julia T 2002, ‘A critical response to John Gray’s Mars
and Venus portrayals of men and women’, The Southern
Communication Journal, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 201–11.
Wood, Julia T 2003, Gendered lives — communication, gender
and culture, 5th edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Zimmerman, Toni, Schindler, Haddock, Shelley A, & McGeorge,
Christine R 2001, ‘Mars and Venus: unequal planets’,
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, vol. 27, no. 1,
Chapter 7 Gender and communication
pp. 55–68.
Zurbriggen, Eileen L, & Sherman, Aurora M 2007,
‘Reconsidering “sex” and “gender”: two steps forward, one
step back’, Feminism & Psychology, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 475–480.
Zuk, Marlene 2004, Sexual selections: what we can and can’t
learn about sex from animals, University of California
Press, Los Angeles.
7.27
 SUGGESTED READING
Allen, Louisa 2003, ‘Girls want sex, boys want love: resisting
dominant discourses of (hetero) sexuality’, Sexualities,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 215–36.
Annis, Barbara 2004, Same words, different language: why
men and women don’t understand each other and what to
do about it, Piatkus, London.
Arliss, Laurie P & Borisoff, Deborah J (eds) 2000, Women and
men communicating: challenges and changes, Waveland
Press, Long Grove, IL.
Ashcraft, Karen & Mumby, Dennis K 2004, Reworking gender:
a feminist communicology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA/
London.
Backland, Philip M & Willams, Mary Rose 2004, Readings in
gender communication, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Brizendine, Louann 2007, The female brain, Broadway, New
York.
Brock, Sabra & Dooley, Joseph 2005, Men head east, women
turn right: how to meet in the middle when facing change,
Adams Media, New York.
Buzzanell, Patrice M, Sterk, Helen & Turner, Lynn H (eds) 2004,
Gender in applied communication contexts, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA/London.
Cameron, Deborah, & Kulick, Don (eds) 2006, The language
and sexuality reader, Routledge, London and New York.
Chrisler, Joan C 2007, ‘The subtleties of meaning: still arguing
after all these years’, Feminism & Psychology, vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 442–446.
Cowlishaw, Bridget Roussell 2001, ‘Subjects are from Mars,
objects are from Venus: construction of the self in
self-help’, Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 35, no.1,
pp. 169–184.
DeFrancisco, Victoria Pruin, & Palczewski, Catherine Helen
2007, Communicating gender diversity: a critical approach,
Sage, London.
Elmore, Cindy 2007, ‘Recollections in hindsight from women
who left: the gendered newsroom’, Women & Language,
vol. 30, no. 2, pp 18–27.
Eckstein, Daniel & Goldman, Alan 2001, ‘The couples’ gender
based communication questionnaire’, Family Journal:
Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 62–74.
Glick, E, Garber, L, Holland, S, Balderston, D & Quiroga, J 2004
‘New directions in multiethnic, racial and global queer
studies’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,
Communicating in the 21st Century
vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 123–37.
Hearn, Jeff, Kimmel, Michael S & Connell, Robert W (eds)
2005, Handbook of studies on men and masculinity, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holmes, Janet & Stubbe, Maria 2003, Power and politeness in
the workplace, Pearson, London.
Holmes, Mary 2005, Sociology of gender, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
7.28
Ivy, Diana K & Backlund, Phil 2004, GenderSpeak: personal
effectiveness in gender communication, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Jansen, Sue Curry 2002, Critical communication theory: power,
media, gender and technology, Rowman & Littlefield,
Lanham, MD.
Kendall, Shari 2004, ‘Framing authority: gender, face and
mitigation at a radio network’, Discourse and Society,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 55–79.
Knöfler, Tobias, & Imhof, Margarete 2007, ‘Does sexual
orientation have an impact on nonverbal behavior in
interpersonal communication?’ Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, vol. 31, pp. 189–204.
Krolokke, Charlotte & Sorensen, Ann Scott 2004, Contemporary
gender communication theories and analyses: from silence
to performance, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA/London.
Lohan, M & Faulkner, W 2004, ‘Masculinities and
technologies: some introductory remarks’, Men and
Masculinities, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 319–29.
Luchjenbroers, June 2002, ‘Gendered features of Australian
English discourse: discourse strategies in negotiated talk’,
Journal of English Linguistics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 200–16.
Meyerhoff, Miriam 2006, Introducing sociolinguistics,
Routledge, London and New York.
Miller, Gloria E 2004, ‘Frontier masculinity in the oil industry:
the experience of women engineers’, Gender, Work and
Organization, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 47–73.
Paul, Elizabeth L 2002, Taking sides: clashing views on
controversial issues in sex and gender, 2nd edn, McGraw-
Hill/Dushkin, Guilford, CT.
Payne, Kaye E 2001 Different but equal: communication
between the sexes, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Pease, Allan & Pease, Barbara 2001, Why men don’t listen and
women can’t read maps: how we’re different and what to
do about it, Broadway Books, New York.
Peterson, Valerie 2000, ‘Mars and Venus: the rhetoric of sexual
planetary alignment’, Women & Language, vol. 23 (XXIII),
no. 2, pp. 1–7.
Real, Terrence 2002, How can I get through to you?
Reconnecting men and women, Simon and Schuster,
New York.
Reeder, Heidi M 1996, ‘A critical look at gender difference in
communication research’, Communication Studies, vol. 47,
no. 4, pp. 318–31.
Schiffrin, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi Ehernberger & Tannen,
Deborah (eds) 2003, The handbook of discourse analysis,
Blackwell, London/New York.
Sunderland, Jane 2006, Language and gender: an advanced
resource book, Routledge, London and New York.
Watson, Tennessee Jane 2006, ‘The profound language of
mothers and daughters: a Ms. conversation with Deborah
Tannen’, Ms., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 42–44.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Quote, pp 7.4–5: © Dooren Kimura, ‘Sex and Cognitition'. Reproduced with permission of MIT Press.
Quote, p. 7.5: ‘Brain sex: how the media report and distort brain research', © Janet Bing, Women and Language, 22 (2), 1999,
pp. 4–12.
Figure 7.2, p. 7.6: From ‘Gender, nature and nurture' by Richard A Lippa, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002, p. 196. Reproduced
with permission from Copyright Clearance Center.
Quote, pp. 7.9–10: © 2008 Billboard. Reprinted with permission from ‘Incentive'.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication

7.29