Wednesday, 13 April 2016

Gender Speech - using theories


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.

1 comment:

  1. 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".

    Good 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.

    ReplyDelete