Gender and Communication

Full text

NEGOTIATION GRAMMAR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION PUNCTUATION GENDER
AND COMMUNICATION EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE LEADERSHIP PHRASES
PRESENTATION SKILLS ASSERTIVENESS ADVERBS NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
TEAM BUILDING
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION PLAIN
ENGLISH AND STYLE RESEARCH SKILLS GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION DOCUMENT DESIGN
MEETINGS ONLINE WRITING EMAILS CLAUSES WEB TEXT REPORTS PROPOSALS
LISTENING SKILLS QUESTIONING SKILLS
NEGOTIATION
LETTER WRITING REFRAMING
FEEDBACK SENTENCE FRAGMENTS MEMO WRITING SELF-TALK LOGIC PERSUASION
INFLUENCE ARGUMENT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL WRITING ORGANISATIONAL
COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATING WITH CUSTOMERS VERBS RESUME WRITING
MEDIA RELEASES POSITION PAPERS THE GRAPEVINE TELECONFERENCING
IONAL CULTURE SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKING ESSAY WRITING GAMES REPORT
WRITERS PLAY DEATH BY POWERPOINT CONFLICT SPIRALS CRISIS COMMUNICATION
MAND SPIN
GRAMMAR
COMMUNICATION MODELS NOUNS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
COMMAS CUSTOMERS NEUROLINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING COMMUNICATION
CHANNELS SIGNALLING INTRAPERSONAL COMMUNICATION REFERENCING AND
PLAGIARISM SEARCH ENGINES PITCHING SKILLS ORGANISATIONAL SILENCE SENDING
RECEIVING ENCODING DECODING PRE-EDITING POST-EDITING NOISE MESSAGES
READABILITY FONTS SEMI-COLONS SYNCHRONOUS/ASYNCHRONOUS LEAN/RICH
INTERVIEWING QUESTIONNAIRES VIRTUAL ORGANISATIONS SHOOT THE MESSENGER
CLIMATE ADJECTIVES
NEGOTIATION
HIGH CONTEXT/LOW CONTEXT CLASH OF
CIVISATIONS GROUPTHINK GRABSPEAK BOUNDARY SPANNER BRAINSTORMING
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE CONCESSIONS FALLBACKS ORGANIC/MECHANISTIC
ORGANISATIONS FLAT/TALL ORGANISATIONS RAGGED RIGHT STAKEHOLDERS
NEGOTIATION
GRAMMAR
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION GRAMMAR PUNCTUATION
GENDER AND COMMUNICATION EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE LEADERSHIP PHRASES
PRESENTATION SKILLS ASSERTIVENESS ADVERBS NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
CONFLICT RESOLUTION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION PLAIN ENGLISH AND STYLE
RESEARCHGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION TEAM BUILDING DOCUMENT DESIGN MEETINGS
ONLINE WRITING EMAILS CLAUSES WEB TEXT REPORTS PROPOSALS LISTENING SKILLS
QUESTIONING SKILLS LETTER WRITING REFRAMING FEEDBACK SENTENCE
FRAGMENTS MEMO WRITING SELF-TALK LOGIC PERSUASION INFLUENCE ARGUMENT
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL WRITING ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION
C21
Communicating
IN THE21
st
CENT URY
4th Edition
Baden Eunson

Contents
CONTENTS
7 Gender and communication
Sex or gender? Biology or culture? 7.4
Clash of ideas: Feminism vs. evolutionary
psychology 7.4
Brains and ability: Biology is destiny? 7.5
Gender and communication: Differences and
similarities 7.9
The spoken word: Talk, talk, talk 7.9
Body talk: Non-verbal communication 7.14
The written word: Men and women writing 7.16
Styles of communication and conict 7.20
Gender and communication: The state of play 7.21
1. The differences are about power, not
gender 7.21
2. There are no or few real differences
anyway 7.21
3. The differences are real, but will unfair use be
made of them? 7.22
4. The differences are real, and they indicate a better
world (or perhaps the same old one. . .) 7.22
5. Specic communication patterns exist, but their
causes are misinterpreted 7.22
Where to from here? 7.23
STUDENT STUDY GUIDE 7.25
Summary 7.25
KEy TErmS 7.25
rEVIEW QuESTIONS 7.25
aPPLIED aCTIVITIES 7.25
WHaT WOuLD yOu DO? 7.26
References 7.26
Suggested reading 7.29
Acknowledgements 7.30

7
Gender and communication

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
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 conicts between genders
■ articulate reservations about thevalidityofgenderasavariableinhuman
communication
■ learn gender-neutral communication techniques.

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.4
Sex or gender? Biology or culture?
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 eld of gender communication, like those of
a number of other specic 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 eld, combined with the fact that many females and
males hold strong opinions (and prejudices) about male/female differences in general and
communication 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 eld of
communication but perhaps particularly in this one.
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 inuence 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 2015; 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; Konner 2015; Ah King 2014).
■ 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.
■ Evolutionary psychologists suggest that 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
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

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.5
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. A criticism of evolutionary psychology is that it justies existing patterns
of social relationships and does not consider that gender is primarily a social construct
(Blustain 2000, p. 44).
But Barnett and Rivers (2004) nd 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
discount 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 so would be to lose face’) and suggests that essentialism
seriously overestimates the inuence 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) (gure 7.1).
People with empathising brains are more
proneto . . .
People with systemising brains are more
proneto . . .
■ Pick up non-verbal cues
■ 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.
■ Read non-fiction than fiction, and watch
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.
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
FI GURE 7.1 Empathising
versus systemising brains
Source: Adapted from Baron-
Cohen (2003).

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.6
programming, and of ‘different but equal’. Such comforting dichotomies, she suggests,
invokes that cosy weasel word of our times, ‘diversity’, 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 signicantly better
than women’s).
■ Females score better than males on verbal memory and uency.
■ Females score better than males on ne 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 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 elds, 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 elds. 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 elds in which math is critical. It is begging the question to insist that their
choices are mostly due to societal inuences. (Kimura 1999, p. 184)
Crawford and Chafn (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
differences at all. Bing (1999) argues that:
. . . reports of scientic research rst show differences between groups and then, with no
explanation, equate difference with decit 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 justication 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)

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.7
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 inuenced views of human nature. They assert that more conservative media
tend to cover stories from a biological determinism or essentialist viewpoint, while more
liberal media were less essentialist and more constructivist.
They also noted that a mother’s perceptions of the difculty in math(s) for her child
predicted 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-fullling prophecy or Pygmalion effect will take place. For example, in a 1960s
psychology experiment, 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 students 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 (gure 7.2). This model is not simply
a weak compromise but a demonstration of the fact that environmental and hereditary
inuences 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 inuence 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 amplies biological predispositions in girls and boys.
■ Parental socialisation moulds the way children interact with their peers.
■ Peer inuences determine which TV shows children watch and the resulting gender
messages children take from TV.
■ Parent and teacher stereotypes inuence the educational choices of boys and girls, which
then inuence their subsequent occupational choices.
■ Work and educational settings inuence 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 inuenced 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

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.8
Tracks of gender development
Prenatal
hormones and
uterine
environment
Organisational effects
on nervous system
Puberty and its hormonal
and physical changes
Marriage and
parenthood, childbirth
Prenatal
social
environment
Dress;
room decor
Family roles; sibling inuences
Independence and dependence training
Differential treatment of boys and girls
Encouragement of sex-typed play
Departing from family
Marriage, spouse inuences, children
Sex segregation;
differing cultures of boys and girls
Adolescent culture College and/or work cultures
Media inuences Social groups
Teacher inuences
School inuences
Gender stereotypes
Gender schemas
College/
university
inuences
Gender
labelling
Internal
gender
standards
Gender
constancy
Attitudes
towards parents
Attitudes
towards siblings
Sexual attractions
and orientations
Attitudes
towards boys
and girls
Gender ideologies and attitudes
Sex-typed play Family roles
and behaviour
Behaviour in close relationship
Gender segregation
Sex-typed
interests
Sexual behaviours
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...
Feedback
loops 1. Biological/
genetic
factors
2. Family
inuences
3. Peer
inuences
4. Social
cultural
inuences
5. Cognition/
thought
6. Emotions/
feelings/
attitudes
7. Behaviour
FI GURE 7.2 Parallel tracks of gender development and their complex evolution
Source: Lippa (2002, p. 196). Reproduced with permission.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.9
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 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 eld, Deborah Tannen and John Gray. While
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, 2014) suggests that women and men talk in different
genderlects, or gender-specic 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 Basow & Rubenfeld 2003). It could be argued that
if women are better than men at rapport skills, then they may have superior emotional
intelligence (see chapter 9; Gulabovska & Leeson 2014).
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 nd 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 reafrm 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 7.10).
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 7.10
Troubles talk can be interpreted by males as unproductive whining; feminist writers
assert the consciousness-raising benets 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
rapport 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 inicted by females on other females. For example, relational
bullying, a common female-to-female behaviour pattern, can involve insults, teasing, the
silent treatment, 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
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
(Hollands2001).
To the extent that these behaviours are typical, they may conrm the contention that
many females have traditionally been taught to suppress conict and assertive, direct
communication, and thus have had little alternative but to communicate in indirect passive
or passive-aggressive (manipulative) styles. Of course, traditions are culture-specic: some
communities are more open in the way they handle conict than the Anglo-American
cultures 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 difculties males and females often experience.
Among these differences he identies 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 Ofce 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.
Relational bullying:
aggression towards others
that does not involve physical
violence
‘Mr Fix-It’ syndrome: the
predisposition of males to
offer solutions to problems
and complaints rather than to
show empathy towards the
complainant

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.11
These differences, he suggests, often cause communication breakdown, leading to conict
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
Ofce 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 ofce,’ her intention may be to help, but what the man hears
iscriticism . . .
Women value caring, cooperation, collaboration, consensus, consideration and communication.
Men value the bottom line, efciency, 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 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 inuential, 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
culture 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 rst 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
commercial 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,
lms, 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 re 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 reects 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 sufce. (Buzzard 2002, p. 90)

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.12
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-x solutions to complex human problems
(Wood & Fixmer-Oraiz 2014; 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 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)
Cameron (2013) sees Gray as part of the ‘neurobabble’ (compare ‘psychobabble’, chapter 9,
‘Interpersonal skills 1’) that has developed in response to the changes in male and female roles
in the economy and society, so that an essentialist view — a form of biological predestination
— is advanced, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
The phenomenon persists: in 2014, a one-man comedy show ‘Men are from Mars, women
are from Venus LIVE’ began a world-wide tour (Mulson 2014).
Gender communication is a eld in its infancy: who knows what we will know in twenty
years? Better communication techniques? Increased insight into the similarities between
intercultural 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-specic speech can be attempted (table 7.1).
TAB LE 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.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.13
Characteristic Differences
Pronunciation and
enunciation
Men tend to use sloppier pronunciation, mumbling more than women.
Grammar and hypercorrection Women tend to use more precise grammar in speech than men do, and may be more likely to
correctthe usage of others.
Fillers and discourse particles Men more than women tend to use speech fillers (‘like’, ‘um’, ‘er’ etc.).
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’).
Diminutives and euphemisms Women may use diminutives (‘chocky bicky’, ‘Chrissy pressy’) and euphemisms (‘powder my nose’)
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 overlaps Men tend to interrupt women more than vice-versa. Interrupting can be a form of expressing
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 boosters Men tend to use quantifiers (‘always’, ‘never’, ‘all’, ‘none’), while women tend to use qualifiers (‘kind
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.
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.
(continued)

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.14
TAB LE 7.1 (continued)
Characteristic Differences
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.
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).
Body talk: Non-verbal communication
Non-verbal communication or body language is a signicant aspect of gender
communication. 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.
■ 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.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.15
TAB LE 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 orientation Women may be approached more closely than men. When males and females are forced into
close 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.
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.
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.
(continued)

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.16
TAB LE 7.2 (continued)
Characteristic Differences
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 leakage As males age, they may become less adept than females in suppressing leakage of emotions
when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 more prone to take radical action to modify their body shapes.
Responsiveness and awareness Overall, women tend to be more responsive than men in non-verbal communication, and tend to
be 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).
Homosexuals and some gender scholars have argued for the existence of ‘gaydar’ (backformed
from radar), or a repertoire on non-verbal behaviour that allows them to identify persons of
similar sexual orientation (Reuther 2003; Stern et al. 2013).
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 communication
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,

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.17
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 rst 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 grafti
in female and male toilets reect this tendency: grafti 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 ction and non-ction 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 correlation has even been made between male style and non-ction genres, on the
one hand, and female style and ction 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.
Phenomenon Example Analysis
Generic pronoun ‘If a ratepayer wants to pay this in person,
he must bring payment to the Council Offices
payment desk.’
Embodies assumption that both
females and males can be adequately
described by a male pronoun.
Generic noun
or title
■ chairman
■ man-made
■ manpower
■ foreman
■ salesman
Historically, these roles or
associations related to men; social
changes are not necessarily
reflected in title changes.
Spotlighting ■ lady doctor
■ male nurse
■ male prostitute
■ career girl
■ male model
■ woman priest
The use of an adjective draws
attention to a role adoption that
challenges a gender-role stereotype.
Diminutivisation ■ actress
■ authoress
■ mayoress
■ Charlotte
■ Paulette
Roles and names are formed
by adding lower-status and/
or affectionate suffixes to titles
andnames.
(continued)
TAB LE 7.3 Biased or loaded
language phenomena
Generic pronoun: using the
masculine pronouns ‘he’
and ‘his’ in all situations,
irrespective of the gender of
those referred to
Generic noun or title: using
nouns or titles with male
connotations in all situations,
even when females are
involved
Diminutivisation: attaching
diminutive suffixes to names,
implying childishness, lower
status or affection
Spotlighting: using a modifier
to draw attention to a role
adoption that challenges a
gender-role stereotype

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.18
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-specic 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.
Phenomenon Example Analysis
Differential
naming
‘Mr Smith [the men from Accounts] and
Jenny [the girls from Marketing] want to
seeyou.’
Males may be referred to by adults
titles, while females may be referred
to by pre-adult titles.
Featurism ‘Joe Breeze was today sworn in
asPresident. He vowed to introducea new
era of freedom andprosperity.’
‘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.’
Focus on appearance of females
tends to trivialise and demean.
TAB LE 7.3 (continued)
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
TAB LE 7.4 Strategies for gender-neutral writing
Rule Unrevised form Revised form
Use a pair of pronouns A manager needs to know what his project
budget is going to be.
Just ask any nurse what she thinks of her
profession, and that might help your career
planning.
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/combined form The clerk will need to have a requisition form
signed before he can obtain a modem.
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.
Recast the sentence to omit the
gender-specic pronoun/s
The average student may end up spending too
much of his money on software.
The operator needs to equip himselforherself
with these protective devices.
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 of verbs He or she can load the DVD. Load the DVD.
Replace third-person pronouns with
second-person pronouns
He or she must clean up the conference room
at the end of each meeting.
You must clean up the conference room at
the end of each meeting.
Use plurals The modern plumber knows that he cannot
neglect the paperwork if his business is to
thrive.
He or she will find that the Z2000 model has a
number of advantages when compared to its
predecessor.
Modern plumbers know that they cannot
neglect the paperwork if their businesses
are to thrive.
Users will find that the Z2000 model has a
number of advantages when compared to
its predecessor.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.19
Rule Unrevised form Revised form
Repeat the noun The builder will find all the traditional lines of
nails and screws, now in metric or SI. In fact,
in converting from imperial measures, we have
taken the opportunity to expand the product
range, giving him or her more, not fewer,
resources.
The builder will find all the traditional
lines of nails and screws, now in
metric or SI. In fact, in converting from
imperial measures, we have taken
the opportunityto expand the product
range, giving the builder more, not fewer,
resources.
Replace third-person pronouns with
indenite article (a, an) or denite
article (the)
The manager or his assistant . . . The manager or an assistant . . .
Change second-person pronouns
togeneric pronoun (sometimes
occurs with subjunctive) — use
sparingly)
She will need to consider her position onthis. One would need to consider one’s
position on this.
Change a nominal to a verbal
expression
A person who has in his possession such
prohibited substances will in fact have broken
the law.
A person who possesses such prohibited
substances will in fact have broken
thelaw.
Change if . . . then clauses to who/
which/that clauses
If a staff member uses the scanner in such a
manner, then he will damage it.
A staff member who uses the scanner in
such a manner will damage it.
Change if . . . when clauses to on/
upon phrases, or modiers without
expressed subjects
When the manager has completed this
procedure, he should have the blue form
witnessed by another person.
Upon completing this procedure, the
manager should have the blue form
witnessed by another person.
Recast restricting/spotlighting
names, titles and roles
■ chairman
■ manhole
■ man-made
■ manpower
■ foreman
■ salesman
■ shopgirl
■ actress
■ authoress
■ woman/female/lady doctor
■ chair, chairperson
■ access hatch
■ artificial, synthetic, constructed
■ human resources, workforce
■ supervisor, team leader
■ sales person, representative
■ staff member, salesperson
■ actor
■ author
■ doctor
Source: Adapted from Corbett (1990); and Troyka and Hesse (2007).
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.

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.20
Styles of communication and conict
Let’s now move back to the more general areas of communication to further pursue the
concepts of gender conict 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.
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 sacrice mentality). With men and women assuming
diametrically opposed mind-sets, misunderstandings and confusion can arise, some examples
of which are shown in table 7.5.
Incident Analysis
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.
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.
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.
The male sees the acquisition in terms of a
hunting metaphor, a win–lose situation; the
female sees it from a cooperative, win–win
perspective.
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 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.
Males and females will often argue about ‘the
dark side’ of equitable share of household
duties. Males will often introduce humour into
the conversation, which changes the hostile
dynamic.
While this can be a good strategy for
defusingconflict between loving couples,
it canlead to the discussion becoming
trivialisedorforgotten, and thus is a form of
silencing (see chapter 1, table 1.5 and chapter 14,
table 14.5).
Sources: Adapted from Tannen (1990), Kolb (1992) and Denker (2013).
There may be profound biological and historical reasons to explain this male combativeness,
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 elds of business and science are not
TAB LE 7.5 Male versus
female approaches to
conflict

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.21
very competitive. Rather, they excel in “work competence” or “work mastery.” They simply
do their jobs extremely well’ (1990, p. 181).
Women are dening 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 conict 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).
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 conict
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
communicating, 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 politeness and courtesy may be a class phenomenon (Mills 2003). Crawford
(1995) suggests that assertiveness training is fundamentally wrong-headed because it
merely conrms 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.
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).
2. There are no or few real differences anyway
Crawford and Chafn (1997) argue that disproportionate attention is paid to differences
(some of which are trivial anyway) and not enough attention to similarities. Romaine (2000)

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.22
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 sacricing their femaleness in pursuit
of a male denition of success.
Hatcher (2003) notes that some management theorists have begun to speak of a
‘feminization of management’, whereby women are seen to have natural advantages in
a world moving away from hierarchy, individuals and competition towards a world of
atter organisations, teams and cooperation. In this brave new world, emotion and the
‘soft skills’of communication, 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 ‘soft-
ening devices’, including styles of handling conict, 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 signicant 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
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).
5. Specic 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 indirect communication is often used by powerful males in work situations, and no-
one who wishes to ourish 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

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.23
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 eld, 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
communication 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. 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 indirect
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 reects 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
communication 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 way this is going to turn out.
As the eld 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 nish by considering advice on inter-gender communication by two of the most
popular writers in the eld:
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 . . .
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 ve minutes, are arguing about the way they are arguing.

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.24
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 benet from exibility. Women who avoid
conict at all costs would be better off if they learned that a little conict won’t kill them. And
men who habitually take oppositional stances would be better off if they broke their addiction
to conict . . .
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 identied perceived differences in female
and male approaches to spoken, non-verbal and written communication. We explored the
basis of communication problems and conicts 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 ve 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 specic communication patterns exist, but their causes are misinterpreted.
KEY TERMS
constructivism p. 7.4
differential naming p. 7.18
diminutivisation p. 7.17
essentialism p. 7.4
featurism p. 7.18
genderlect p. 7.9
generic noun or title p. 7.17
generic pronoun p. 7.17
‘Mr Fixit’ syndrome p. 7.10
rapport talk p. 7.9
relational bullying p. 7.10
report talk p. 7.9
spotlighting p. 7.17
troubles talk p. 7.9
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 ve perceived differences in the speech behaviour of males and
females.
6. Identify at least ve 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 conrm or disconrm 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.
STUDENT STUDY GUIDE
Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.25

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.26
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 conict, 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
ofce, 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 ak jacket on. Tell them what the policy is,andtry to
explain 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?
REFERENCES
Ah-King, Malin (ed.) 2014, Challenging popular myths of sex,
gender and biology, Springer, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/
London.
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 commodication 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.
——— 2013, More heat than light?: Sex-difference science and
the study of language (Garnett Sedgewick Memorial Lecture),
Ronsdale Press/Kindle edition, Amazon Digital Services,
Seattle,WA.
Campbell, Anne 2002, A mind of her own: the evolutionary
psychology of women, Oxford University Press,
Oxford/New York.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.27
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 & Chafn, 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.
Denker, Katherine J 2013, ‘Maintaining gender during work–life
negotiations: relational maintenance and the dark side of
individual marginalization’, Women and Language, vol. 36,
no.2, pp. 11–34.
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.
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 2015, The gender
communication connection, 2nd edn, Routledge, London/
NewYork.
——— 1992, He says, she says: closing the communication gap
between the sexes, Perigee/Penguin, New York.
Glass, Lillian 2000, The complete idiot’s guide to understanding
men and women, Alpha Books, Indianapolis, IN.
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
grafti’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 22, no.
3, pp. 282–96.
Guillaume, Cécile & Pochic, Sophie 2008, ‘What would you
sacrice? Access to top management and the work-life balance’,
Gender, Work and Organization, DOI 10.1111/
j.1468-0432.2007.00354.x
Gulabovska, Monika & Leeson, Peter 2014, ‘Why are women better
decoders of nonverbal language?’ Gender Issues, vol. 31, no. 3,
pp. 202–18.
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 ofce: 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,
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 & 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.
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.
Konner, Melvin 2015, Women after all: sex, evolution, and the end
of male supremacy, W.W. Norton, New York.

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.28
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 inuence
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
conict 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.
Mulson, Jen 2014, ‘John Gray’s classic relationship advice given
comic spin in “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus
LIVE”’, McClatchy — Tribune Business News, 2 October 2014,
Washington.
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 conicts, and conict 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 ofce 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.
Stern, Chadley et al. 2013, ‘The politics of gaydar: ideological
differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual
orientation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
vol.104, no. 3, pp. 520–41.
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.
——— 2014, ‘“Bossy” more than a word to women: it has become a
frame of mind with deep roots in the family and playground.
Let’s ban it.’ USA Today, 12 March, A. 12.

Chapter 7 Gender and communication 7.29
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 2012, Simon &
Schusterhandbook for writers, 10th 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 & Fixmer-Oraiz, Natalie 2014, Gendered lives —
communication, gender and culture, 11th 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, 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.
SUGGESTED READING
Ahmad, Kamarul Zaman & Rethinam, Kalaiselvi 2010, ‘Mars,
Venus and Gray: gender communication’, International Business
Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 24–34.
Ainsworth, Susan, Knox, Angela & O’Flynn, Janine 2009, ‘Blinding
lack of progress’: management rhetoric and afrmative action’,
Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 17, no.6, pp. 658–78.
Amakye, Augustina 2010, Gender communication in a
computer-mediated context, LAP LAMBERT Academic
Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Annis, Barbara 2004, Same words, different language: why men
and women don’t understand each other and what to do about it,
Piatkus, London.
Annis, Barbara & Merron, Keith 2015, Gender intelligence:
breakthrough strategies for increasing diversity and improving
your bottom line, HarperCollins, New York.
Attenborough, Frederik 2014, ‘Jokes, pranks, blondes and banter:
recontextualising sexism in the British print press’, Journal of
Gender Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 137–54(18).
Barrett, Mary 2011, ‘Do they speak SNAG?; Comparing male
students’ perceptions of workplace communication dilemmas
with those of female students and female managers’, Gender in
Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 148–59.
Borisoff, Deborah J & Cheseboro, James W 2011, Communicating
power and gender, Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL.
Brettell, Catherine & Sargeant, Carolyn F 2013, Gender in cross-
cultural perspective, 6th edn, Pearson, London/New York.
Brizendine, Louann 2007, The female brain, Three Rivers Press,
New York.
——— 2011 , The male brain, Three Rivers Press, NewYork.
Cameron, Deborah & Panovic, Ivan 2014, Working with written
discourse, Sage, London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi.
Caprile, Maria & Pascual, Amparo Serrano 2011, ‘The move
towards the knowledge-based society: a gender approach’,
Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 48–72.
Capuzza, Jamie C et al. 2015, Transgender communication studies:
histories, trends, and trajectories, Lexington, Lanham, MD.
Coates, Jennifer 2004, Women, men and language: a sociolinguistic
account of gender differences in language, 3rdedn, Pearson,
London/New York.
Domagalski, Theresa A & Steelman, Lisa 2007, ‘The impact
of gender and organizational status on workplace anger
expression’, Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 20,
no.3, pp.297–316.
Eckstein, Jessica J 2011, ‘Reasons for staying in intimately violent
relationships: comparisons of men and women and messages
communicated to self and others’, Journal of Family Violence,
vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 21–30.
Frankel, Lois P 2010, Nice girls don’t get the corner ofce:
101unconscious mistakes women make that sabotage their
careers, Business Plus, New York.
Gomez, Antonio García 2010, ‘Disembodiment and cyberspace:
Gendered discourses in female teenagers’ personal information
disclosure’, Discourse & Society, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 135–60.
Gray, John 2010, Venus on re, Mars on ice: hormonal
balance — the key to life, love and energy, Mind Publishing,
NewYork.
Holmstrom, Amanda 2009, ‘Sex and gender similarities and
differences in communication values in same-sex and cross-sex
friendships’, Communication Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 2,
pp.224–38.
Howlett, Neil et al. 2015, ‘Unbuttoned: the interaction between
provocativeness of female work attire and occupational status’,
Sex Roles, vol. 72, no. 3–4, pp. 105–16.
Jagger, Gill 2015, ‘The new materialism and sexual difference’,
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 321–42.
Jordan-Young, Rebecca M 2010, Brain storm: the aws in the
science of sex differences, Harvard University Press.
Krumhuber, Eva G & Manstead, Anthony S R 2011, ‘When
memoryis better for out-group faces: on negative emotions
andgender roles’, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, vol. 35, no.1,
pp. 51–61.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach, Bucholtz, Mary (ed.) 2004, Language and
woman’s place: text and commentaries, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Loosemore, Martin & Galea, Natalie 2008, ‘Genderlect and
conict in the Australian construction industry’, Construction
Management and Economics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 125–35.

Communicating in the 21st Century 7.30
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.
McElhinny, Bonnie 2011, Language and gender: a cross-cultural
introduction, Blackwell, London/New York.
Mullany, Louise 2011, Gendered discourse in the professional
workplace, Palgrave, London.
Nelson, Audrey & Brown, Claire Damken 2013, The gender
communication handbook: conquering conversational collisions
between men and women, Pfeiffer, San Francisco.
Papadopoulos, Linda 2011, What men say, what women hear:
bridging the communication gap one conversation at a time,
Gallery Press, New York.
Perrin, Paul B et al. 2011, ‘Aligning Mars and Venus: the social
construction and instability of gender differences in romantic
relationships’, Sex Roles, vol. 64, no. 9–10, pp. 613–28.
Pfeffer, Carla A 2014, ‘Blind to sameness: sexpectations and
the social construction of male and female bodies’, Gender &
Society, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 791–94.
Reardon, Kathleen 2015, They don’t get it, do they?: Communication
in the workplace — closing the gap between women and men,
Kindle edition, Amazon Digital Services, Seattle, WA.
Roughgarden, Joan 2004, ‘Evolution and the embodiment of
gender’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 10,
no.2, pp. 287–91.
Salmon, Catherine & Shackelford, Todd K (eds.) 2011, The Oxford
handbook of evolutionary family psychology, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Speer, Susan A & Stokoe, Elizabeth 2011, Conversation and gender,
Cambridge University Press.
Talbot, Kirsten 2010, ‘The perils of being a nice guy: contextual
variation in ve young women’s constructions of acceptable
hegemonic and alternative masculinities’, Men and
Masculinities, vol. 13, pp. 255–78.
Tannen, Deborah 2010, You were always mom’s favorite!: sisters
inconversation throughout their lives, Ballantine Books,
NewYork.
Vandermassen, Griet 2005, Who’s afraid of Charles Darwin?:
debating feminism and evolutionary theory, Rowman &
Littleeld, Lanham, MD.
Weitzer, Ronald & Kubrin, Charis E 2009, ‘Misogyny in rap music:
a content analysis of prevalence and meanings’, Men and
Masculinities, vol. 12, pp. 3–29.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Quote, pp. 7.6: © Dooren Kimura, ‘Sex and Cognitition’. Reproduced with permission of MIT Press.
Quote, p. 7.6: ‘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. 7.8: From ‘Gender, nature and nurture’ by Richard A Lippa, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002, p. 196. Reproduced with
permission from Copyright Clearance Center.
Quote, p. 7.11: © 2008 Billboard. Reprinted with permission from ‘Incentive’.