Module 2

Popular culture portrays gender as a series of

“differences”, often more dramatically presented as
“Gender Wars” between the sexes.
Gender Wars
- is a structural metaphor, meaning that the phase structures one concept in terms of another:
Gender relations= war (George Lakoff &Mark Johnson 1980)

Structural metaphors often are extended by a series of additional metaphors stemming from the initial equation,
as in “ the latest skirmish in the war between the sexes”( Blustain,2000, P.42) If one thinks of gender and sex relations
as a constant battle, with casualities, assigned sides, enemies and weapons, the ultimate goals of surrender or
annihilation become inherent.

The assumption that there are two different views of reality, with sides assigned at birth, and they conflict.

In actual wartime, both sides use propaganda to demonize the enemy. Thus, women often are demonized as
being relationally demanding, emotionally unstable and needy. Men are often demonized as being withdrawn,
unemotional and aggressive. With the contradictory descriptions such these, gender war seems inevitable and
never ending. It is important to examine the ways in which this view of gender and sex as oppositional, pitting the
woman and man against each other, limits an understanding of the issue involved.

Imagine, instead, if the popular metaphor of gender relations were “gender unions”, how might predominant
depictions of women’s and men’s communication differ from what is typically reported.

Indeed, although the predominant culture continues to assume that women and men are extremely different
therefore communicate in different ways, actual research does not support such a clear distinction.
(Anderson & Leaper, 1998; Edwards & Hamilton, 2004;MacGeorge, Graves, Feng,Gilihan, & Burleson, 2004;Yaeger-Dror, 1998)?

Interestingly, as researchers continually disproved the existence of generic gender differences, media and
popular culture seem to spread the myth of difference even more pervasively. It seems to be a message many
people want to hear. The magnetism of this simplistic view is incredibly compelling. Why might this so be?
First, sex and gender are primary social categories in most cultures.

When a child is born, what is the first question most people ask? It is not about weight, length, hair color, or
any other. Instead, people ask, "Is it a boy or a girl?" From then on, they tend to talk about, interact with, and
dress the infant accordingly.

In Western cultures, since the 1900s PINK has been designated for girls and BLUE for boys. Many a parent
won't dress an infant in the color designated for the other sex for fear that people will misidentify the sex of
the child, as if such a mistake would be a horrible embarrassment.
 .

The preference for a male firstborn

remains true for many in Western
cultures. In other parts of the world, the
cultural economic bias toward boy
children sadly still leads to the infanticide
of girl babies or to orphanages filled with
them.

Tradition allows only boy children to carry on the family name; thus boys also inherit the family assets and, with their
future wives, provide for their aging parents. Girl children are often expected to marry, to provide dowries upon
marriage, and to care for their husbands' families.

Second, the assumption of difference is tied to the assumption of heterosexual romance

Robert Hopper concludes the cultural belief that everyone should be in a heterosexual relationship feeds
into the focus on the gender differences. Early on, boys and girls are encourage to see each other as the
“opposite sex” and to vie other’s attentions.

Heterosexual dating is a primary means to popularity for many in U.S. middle and high schools. And
heterosexual weddings are seen as the ultimate social rituals (Ingraham, 1999), so much so that states are
moving rapidly to amend their constitutions to bar marriage among gays and lesbians.

Third, in Western capitalistic cultures, sex, differences, and conquest sell.

When popular writers, television directors and advertisers put the word SEX in their presentations, sales
and ratings go up. People are immediately interested and want to hear or read more.
 If emphasis were placed on recognizing the ways in which the sexes are similar, as in gender
union metaphor, there would be no challenge, no mystery, and no threat. As we live in culture in which
heterosexual romantic relations are stress so much, an interesting question to ask is why the authors and
the media do not focus more on identifying and celebrating the similarities between women and men. This
omission is very telling about the predominant culture and its political tool.

Fourth, the focus on difference is political.

It helps reinforce the notion that women and men are different, that men and women are in series of “gender
wars” with each other, and that women and men will never understand each other. The emphasis on
differences becomes a tool to mask or justify social inequalities based on race, sex, class, and other social
categories.

A female who adopts a more autocratic style of management may be labeled overbearing, whereas a male
manager using this style may be seen as strong leader. The negative political effects of presumed differences
show up in everyday life. The assumption of presumed differences creates conflicts, persistent inequalities,
false expectations and disappointments

“These [differences] theories hurt male-female relationships, undermine equality in schools and the
workplace, adversely affect the division of labor in the home, and deprive our children for the opportunity to
develop their full human potential". Barnett and Rivers (2004)

If communication problems were solely to differences and not to group power or status, women and men
could borrow each other's styles with similar effectiveness. Mary Crawford (1995)

In sum, a view of gender/sex as difference is popular and so people raised in the predominant culture tend
to focus on differences rather than similarities.

REFERENCE:

Defrancisco, Victoria P. & Palczewski, Catherine Helen (2007). Communicating Gender Diversity: A Critical
Approach. California: Sage Publications, Inc.