Audience: in a meeting staff room at middle class- people
debating how different each other are regarding titles.
As soon as we reach primary school, why is every child given
a title such as ‘Miss’? Why should they be given a role at that age when they don’t
understand the world and responsibilities yet? Why should there be one title
for an ‘unmarried woman’ and only one for a man? Titles are something you give
someone if you are getting married or have a degree such as Professor. Even then
the roles are unmarked. Why are men and women titles differently when they both
could allocate the same role in the same job?
When calling a man ‘Mr’ we presume that they are married
however when we call a woman ‘Miss’ we assume she isn’t married and is single. By
calling someone miss it gives the impression that they are still young as many
young teenage girls are called miss when they receive letters or apply for
jobs. This also gives the impression that they are weaker than being a ‘Mrs’. Women
who are titled as ‘Mrs’ give the impression that they have a partner and
therefore married. It also sounds grown up and sophisticated. Zimmerman and
Wests theory indicates that men have more power over women and therefore when
they are married she now has power as she is ‘apart of him’ and becomes a Mrs. However,
other titles such as Doctor and Professor are unmarked as it is gender neutral.
Having gender neutral titles indicates that the role is shared and there shouldn’t
be a desired authority which states who is ‘higher’ in that role. By having
roles like that it indicates that no one is superior to the other and the job
is equal.
Men are stereotypically associated with having more power
compared to women. This could be down to the one title of Mr compared to women
who can have three- Miss, Mrs and Ms. By a man having a Mrs by his side it
indicates that he has power over her as she has taken the role of his last name
with Mrs. Zimmerman and Wests theory agrees as men are the more powerful ones
in gender as they tend to interrupt more than women making them more superior. This
could also be why men are known for being the ‘man of the house’ because they
like to own everything and be direct compared to women who can be hesitant
while using polite forms as Lakoff said in her theory. Because men have the
power they tend to not listen to women more and interrupt them. This contradicts
Beatties theory as his theory indicates that men and women are equal therefore
there should be no higher roles when it comes to two people. With this being
said men should be equal and just as important as their wife (and if so
husband) and also have the same level of power regarding interruptions. However,
same sex couples have the same allocated titles. This shows no power as both of
the roles are equal.
Within the work environment there are many people with
different titles such as Mrs, Miss, Mr and Sir. They all do the same job but
are they still equal? When people come to a job interview and present themselves
as Miss, people could associate them with being weaker and use intensifiers and
emphatic language. This makes them sound weaker than the males and could be
paid less. The title also tells the interviewers or colleagues that they might
not have the same experience as a ‘Mrs’. By women using empty adjectives and
the lack of humour, they might weaken themselves. Lakoffs theory indicates that
women tend to do this compared to the males as they are more direct and have
better sense of humour. This could mean that men are more outgoing and therefore
earned the title of Mr. This shows power as they have worked hard for themselves
but also as they are treated as the ‘norm’ in the sexes. So how come men are the
‘norm’ and are supposably paid more? With men being more direct shows they know
what they are talking about and have ideas but in Lakoffs theory it indicates
that they swear more and also interrupt more. Would you want this man working
in your environment? How come men can get some work done and slack off by using
covert prestige towards fellow work colleagues but women can work hard by using
empty adjectives and get paid less? The titles ruin the modern life in how
everyone is treated and respected at work.
A strong opinion - well done. Watch out for possessive apostrophes; several times you missed them out and you need them for phrases like "Zimmerman and West's theory" or "Beattie's theory".
ReplyDeleteGood use of some persuasive devices in a speech e.g. rhetorical questions. What outcome did you hope for in the meeting as it wasn't quite clear. It would be better to be more specific about the context - what kind of organisation/job was it? What was the role of the speaker?
Try not to generalise about men and women - say how they are percieved (e.g. the stereotypical way women are seen is...) but don't fall into that trap yourself.
Check apart/a part, supposedly/supposably.
Marked terms, covert prestige, empty adjectives, intensifiers, emphatic language etc. are linguistic terms and won't be understood by a general audience.
Proofread for clarity.