communication

Why Don’t You Understand?: A Gender Relationship Dictionary

mandy — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Is it just me, or should a person with designation “Dr.” in front of her name know the difference between sex and gender? True: language changes all the time and words gain new meanings. So, as American society becomes increasingly uptight when talking about sex (the act), sex (the anatomical distinction) has been replaced in our vernacular with a word that refers to the classic assumptions for social role play placed upon each sex: gender. (It would seem we’re the new Victorians.)

This ambiguity isn’t the only issue I have with Dr. Karen Gail Lewis’ Why Don’t You Understand?. While the good doctor (of education) assumes that women are generally oversensitive, spontaneously emotional, nagging crackpots and men are under-responsive, clueless dingbats, and in doing so assumes too much; her real crime is in assuming that heterosexual couples are made up of these two parts universally. The answer to your query, Doc, isn’t that men and women don’t understand each other sometimes because we are different from each other owing to our sexes, but that people in general are unique individuals and, therefore, different from each other irrespective of their sexes.

It is the case that this dictionary comes along twenty or so years too late, now that we’ve been liberated from gender in many ways. Not all men have trouble expressing their feelings because they live in fear of a beating from dad or name-calling from school bullies. Yet Lewis has the audacity to make blanket observations like: “Men do not confront a relationship problem unless absolutely necessary because – like the boy who took apart and re-assembled a clock, only to have one piece left over – the risk is that they’ll make things much worse.”

Do men in homosexual relationships both behave this same way? If so, how do their problems get solved? What about women who don’t confront relationship problems head on? Are they abnormal? This text prompts many questions like these.

Education is never a waste. It’s a great idea to recognize your, and your partner’s, patterns of behavior. This can help you avoid many of the miscommunications detailed in this book. But the problem with gender assumptions is that they limit us. You can believe in astrology, for instance, but that doesn’t mean that you believe all people born under the sign of Aquarius are friendly yet unpredictable, at least not in the same exact way as the next Aquarian.

Of course, Lewis could have avoided this overwhelming analytic pitfall by eliminating the language of assumption. She could have described scenarios between Individual A and Individual B rather than Category Man and Category Woman. She could have contributed to the emerging relevance of queer theory, which challenges sex and gender binaries and their resulting “normal” behaviors. It is the acceptance of gender fluidity that liberates men and women by allowing us each to be the kind of person it feels good to be.

Written by: Rachel Moehl, October 24th 2010

Clear Leadership: Sustaining Real Collaboration and Partnership at Work, Revised Edition

admin — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:33:00 +0000

By Gervase R. Bushe

Davies-Black Publishing

I was pleased to find that a book devoted to helping people to communicate effectively and clearly was written very, very clearly. It was not pedantic or condescending; in it, the author seems to genuinely respect his audience. Refreshingly, the case studies and examples offered actually helped to illuminate the point and structure of the book—how rarely that happens!

Bushe identifies "interpersonal mush" as a key source of stagnation, frustration, and lack of direction and success in companies and organizations, and claims that people who contribute to producing this "mush" are unable to be effective leaders. By "mush," Bushe means the sedimented, collaborative misunderstandings, unfounded beliefs, unidentified fears and unarticulated desires that put people at cross-purposes. This "mush" both produces and is produced by a disintegration of communication and makes real collaboration nearly impossible.

When partners and colleagues are unclear about the distinction between thoughts, observations and feelings, they are unable to effectively communicate anything about these things. By inviting readers to reexamine these distinctions and to regain clarity about their own feelings, emotions, and judgments, Bushe positions his reader (and those who attend his seminars) to be able to clearly communicate these things in ways that are simple and effective.

Although this book (and his seminars) is largely targeted to organizations and businesses, many people could gain much from the exercises and explanations Bushe offers here. Intimate personal relationships, familial relationships, and friendships can all suffer from the stagnation and lack of deep understanding that can result when one or more parties stops actively paying attention to others, assuming that those with whom she is in relationship remain the same over time. It is easy to forget to seek out and appreciate the dynamism of our loved ones. Clarity about our own role in producing judgments and opinions as well as about the elements of experience can help to gently break down harmful patterns of relationship-momentum.

I can't speak much to the effectiveness of the exercises offered at the end of the four chapters devoted to the four aspects of the self that Bushe aims to help develop, as I did not do them. Some of them felt so very intimate for exercises meant to be done with a colleague or friend, but perhaps that might be because I am so used to varying levels of unclarity and mush that clarity feels almost uncomfortable.

Written by: kristina grob, August 26th 2009

Try To See It My Way: Being Fair in Love and Marriage

admin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:42:00 +0000

By B. Janet Hibbs, Karen J. Getzen

Avery Books

“That’s not fair!” A common refrain in any relationship, heard from child to parent, between spouses, and, eventually, from parent to child. The question inherent in resolving these conflicts is: who is fair? We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable, kind, just people; and most of all, we like to think of ourselves as right. However, when both people in an argument believe that they are the rational one, how do we come to a resolution?

Try to See it My Way introduces a new way of determining what’s fair, by a consensus between you and your partner. The book begins with an overview of relationship ethics, showing how your upbringing taught you what was fair in your family, and thus, why your partner’s upbringing will have taught him or her a different set of rules. Often these expectations and behaviors are learned by example rather than actually being verbalized, and may be handed down through many generations without anyone questioning whether they are appropriate.

Hibbs provides many stories of couples in therapy, but also includes self-reflection exercises in each section to aid you in identifying your behavior in the examples given. We all make decisions about whether we are being fair, and whether others are fair to us, without really considering outside information, and often without even verbalizing that we have made the decision.

Hibbs suggests that you identify what rules you and your partner are operating under currently, and how to form new rules together which can apply within your relationship. Once you have made a new bond of fairness with your partner, you can then learn how to extend your new viewpoint to the rest of your life. The changes you make with your partner will affect how you relate to your parents, your children and your friends.

Issues of trust, loyalty, and expectations of what a relationship should or should not provide are explored in detail, and suggestions are provided as to how to make changes for the better in your own life. If the phrases “you should”, “you never” or “you always” are heard frequently in your household spats, this book could prove to be a life saver.

While this book would not replace a marital therapist, completing the exercises provides a good look into the issues you both bring to your relationship, and is helpful as you both find new ways of coming to agreements. I found the author extremely insightful, and the exercises very revealing. This book is an easy read, is not overly academic, and does not use a judgmental tone. It serves as a safe space to access your memories, as a guide to let you make your own discoveries, and a place to create a new model of fairness that really feels fair to everyone concerned. Highly recommended!

Written by: Melissa Ruiz, June 9th 2009

Forgiveness from a Feminist Perspective

admin — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:44:00 +0000

By Kathryn Norlock

Lexington Books

Forgiveness is everywhere. Oprah is extolling its necessity when not engaged directly in seeking it for herself. Female celebrities seem to be forever forgiving (or not) someone, though among the most talked about are unresolved differences between mothers and daughters (a la Jennifer Aniston and Tori Spelling). Adulterous and embezzling politicians regularly ask for forgiveness in public—a request of their families as much as their constituents. Self-forgiveness is a frequent topic among the most high-minded and thoughtful among us. Spiritual leaders and renowned writers like Desmond Tutu and Hannah Arendt have said that forgiveness is an essential aspect of everyday life.

In Forgiveness from a Feminist Perspective, feminist philosopher Kathryn Norlock attempts to reframe the conversation about forgiveness and fill the existing gaps in psychology, philosophy, and gender studies. Norlock argues that despite what many philosophers have ignored in the relationship between gender and forgiveness, the act of forgiving is very much a gendered act. Women are overwhelmingly expected to forgive—not necessarily because they are more wronged, though that argument could certainly be made—and often, forgiveness is associated with a particular type of femininity, though Norlock is clear to separate “femininity,” “forgiveness,” and “weakness.” To deal with the blatant sex bias in forgiveness studies, Norlock debunks the historically gender-neutral approach to understanding the moral power, compassionate communication, and radical activism of forgiving.

Norlock’s work is highly academic and departs from a specific self-identified perspective—that of a white, heterosexual, middle-class, Western feminist academic. While her point of view may therefore be limited and lack engagement with certain texts and cultural scripts, it wouldn’t be fair to assume Norlock should begin her investigation from an impersonal point of departure. As feminists of varied persuasions, backgrounds, and vantage points, we understand too well the necessity of searching for answers from your own experience.

Norlock’s search for truth is dense and compelling, drawing necessary attention to relational power imbalances. It isn’t light, everyday reading, but maybe understanding forgiveness should be a bit heavier than that.

Written by: Brittany Shoot, June 1st 2009