Caroline Ulugia

Communications 1050 Section 9

Paper 2: Genderlect
Revised Final

Description of the Relationship:

Most relationships are different along with how well men and women
communicate. I will further describe two different Conversation Styles between
men and women from author Dr. Deborah Tannens book Genderlect Styles. With
this paper, I will compare the differences between men and women communicating
through private versus public speaking and fight because angry versus fight for fun
based on a past relationship. I will also describe communication strategies using
The Social Penetration theory, researched information from theorists Irwin Altman
and Dalmas Taylor. Furthermore, I will explain power differences within the
relationship and how it affected the outcome of the relationship. I will then
conclude with the lessons Ive learned from doing this analysis.
The relationship I had with a male a couple years ago started off as a
friendship then gradually turned into a relationship. We met each other through a
mutual friend. The first time I noticed him was at a party, I saw him helping
someone who was throwing up at a party. In the beginning we were casual with
our conversations then we kept running into each other more often. We kept
running into one another until one day he asked to hang out. I budged and said yes.
Starting off as friends allowed us to familiarize our commonalities and differences.
After hanging out we then went on an official dinner date and started spending
more time together. After six months, he asked me where we stood. I just
shrugged. I was enjoying our time together and didnt want to put a label or
anything on what we were. It wasnt until I was out with a group of friends and my
thoughts would refer back to him. The next time we met up for lunch, we discussed
relationships and what they meant to one another, then we both decided to make
the relationship official.
Conversation Styles:
One of the Conversation Styles I chose to begin with is private speaking
versus public speaking. The male playing the public part and the female playing
the private part of the style. The difference with public versus private speaking
among men and women are extremely versatile. According to Tannen, Men tend
to do more public speaking than women as a way to share information and to
establish a higher status position. They do less private speaking. Women tend to
talk more than men in private conversations to gain connection. They do less
public speaking. They appreciate men who listen. With our past relationship I
recall a time where we both were off from work. He came over to my house. I
asked him how his day was and he would keep it brief and reply, Nothing, same
old thing. I didnt think nothing of it until one evening we went on a group
bowling date with other friends. One of our friends, asked him how work is going,
to my surprise he goes into full detail about how great work is going for him and

how he expects a raise soon. They go on to converse more about work while I am
sitting there appalled because when I ask questions to start a conversation about
work I dont receive more than a sentence. Thinking back to this moment I can
certainly relate to this conversation style because as a woman I do appreciate a
man who listens and wants to talk to gain connection.
The second Conversation Style with this relationship is fight because angry
versus fight for fun. The female showing fight because angry and the male
showing fight for fun. The difference between how conflict is handled by men and
women is astounding. According to Tannen, Men appear more comfortable with
conflict and less likely to hold back. Conflict is often seen as a game or a way to
gain status. Women often view conflict as a threat to connection, to be avoided.
For example one day at work I had a top on that was exactly the same as another
co-worker. The same color and the same design. This is a co-worker I wasnt fond
of either. I was disgusted because we had the same top and were both wearing it on
the same day! After work I get picked up from my boyfriend, I get in his car and
see my coworker with the same top as me walk out. I then explain to him how
annoyed I was at wearing the same top as her, how we wore the same thing. He
replies, Dont wear the purple top again. I look at him and reply, Thats all,
and he laughs and shrugs me off. How he replied caused me to think he was not
listening because I did not want him to provide a fix-it solution but to provide an
understanding of what I was expressing. During our relationship there were many
instances similar to this scenario. Where I am expressing feelings, he offers a fix-it
solution.
Communication Strategies:
If I had known these conversational styles then I would have known how to
better understand the opposite sex. I would think these were personal issues
amongst us when communication couldve definitely been improved. Looking
back to this time in my life, I wouldve applied The Social Penetration Theory,
Interpersonal relationships evolve in some gradual and predictable fashion. Social
Penetration theorists believe that self-disclosure is the primary way that superficial
relationships progress to intimate relationships. Although self-disclosure can lead
to more intimate relationships, it can also leave one or more persons vulnerable.
(West and Turner, 169) Like an onion, peeling away layers rations time and stages
are met. Altman and Taylor compare an onion to tearing up the relationship.
(West and Turner, 172) I didnt want to understand him or make the relationship
work on my end, because I felt he wasnt listening to me half the time. I did not
want to share more of what I could offer because I did not trust him because we
weren't interacting. Learning about the Social Penetration Theory and
understanding the relational costs and rewards back then wouldve helped me

make out early on if I wanted to disclose personal information about myself. If an

individual believes there are more costs to being in a relationship, then relationship
dissolution is probable. (West and Turner, 175) Moving forward, applying this
theory helps me become aware for the next relationship what I choose to disclose
and the rewards and costs of sharing intimate information about myself.
Power:
The power difference within the communication relationship was equal for
the most part. There were instances where we would compromise, or I would
decide and he would listen. There were times when we would agree on watching
the same movie and other times when we both disagreed and then would argue.
Many times we would both be in competition or try and think the others task was
not as important as our own. With the private versus public speaking scenario I
believe he has more of the power because he does not openly express himself other
than to up his status, while I am willing to share information to connect. Using the
trouble talk versus fix-it talk I dont believe either of us has power because there is
no effective solution when both are not on the same page. If I could I would go
back in time and change my behavior by asking or finding a way to understand
him, instead of arguing or taking issues personally, I couldve been more attentive
by offering suggestions instead of thinking one way or no way.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the relationship lesson I learned from doing this analysis is to
be more open to the idea that hes not always out to get me. I am familiar with a
variety of conversation styles now where I can understand that we all converse
differently. Communication takes work on both ends and in order for any
relationship to work, communication takes patience too. I learned there is a huge
difference in how men and women converse with getting messages across. I can
improve my communication with the opposite sex by learning to recognize these
styles and using a direct strategy to communicate effectively.

Works Cited
Tannen. Deborah. You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in
Conversation. New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1990. Print.
West, Richard and Lynn H. Turner. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis
and Application. 4th Ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.