Human Sexuality in a Diverse World

I Love Peanut Butter!

was born in Regensburg, Germany, and I have lived there all of my life up until now. For the past year I have been living in the United States, and during this time, I have learned a lot about cross-cultural differences in communication. When I first came to the States I was so sur­prised that foreigners would greet me on the street and ask me, "How are you doing?"—I was not used to people I didn’t know asking me how I was feeling! Americans have a very emotional way of using language. They "love" strawberries—what does this mean? When someone says "I love you," does this mean that a person loves you as much as the strawberries? Or is it a different kind of love? This was really confusing for me.

When I went back to Germany for a visit I said, "I love peanut butter" in German, and all the people looked at me strangely. They would say, "I like peanut butter." Saying "I love" is too exaggerated. Can you really "love" strawberries or peanut butter?

I love the enthusiasm that Americans use when talking to each other. It makes their language so lively. However, I think that special expressions or words lose their real meanings when you use them all the time. This is especially true when it comes to relationships. Americans say "I love you," but I’m not sure what that really means. A little boy tells his mother he loves her, good friends say it, you hear it being said in ad­vertisements, and everyone loves everyone! But how can you express real deep feelings if you are using the phrase "I love you" all the time? Does it still mean the same thing? How do you know if Americans really love you, if they also love their peanut butter? What does "I love you" really mean?

In Germany, we say something that is between "I love you" and "I like you," maybe it means more, "You are in my heart." You would use the phrase Ich hab’ dich lieb to tell your mother and father, your friends, or your new boyfriend how you feel about them. But when someone says Ich liebe Dich, the German "I love you," then your relationship is re­ally serious. This phrase is reserved only for relationships in which you know your partner really well. Saying Ich liebe Dich is very hard for some people, because it can make you more vulnerable. When a man would say Ich liebe Dich after three months of dating, it would make me wonder whether he could be taken seriously. Germans only use these words when they really mean it, and this gives the phrase much more respect.

I like how Americans are so open about letting someone know that they care about them. The first time an American told me they loved me I was touched. It felt great to have someone feel that strongly about me. But I knew that the way the phrase was used was very different than in Germany. It’s hard to tell when it’s really serious. I wish that the English language had an expression for real emotions between two people who are really in love with each other. Why is there no phrase in the English language that means something be­tween liking and loving someone? Every culture and every country has its own ways of communicating and expressing ideas. What is most important is learning how to accept and learn from the differences.

Source: Author’s files.

to project a certain image of ourselves. All of these goals compete with one another, making the job of communicating our thoughts, needs, or desires even that much tougher. We’ll discuss these goals in more detail later in this chapter, but for now, let’s explore the nature of communication between the sexes and perhaps we can uncover guidelines to good communication.

How Women and Men Communicate

Conversations between women and men are often more difficult than conversations that occur in same-sex groups (Athenstaedt et al., 2004; Edwards & Hamilton, 2004). Why is this? Do men and women communicate differently? Is part of the communication problem incompatibility between how men and women communicate, so that the con­tent of the communication gets lost in the form it takes?

Deborah Tannen (1990) has done a great deal of research in the area of communi­cation and gender differences. She has termed the fundamental differences between the I genderiect way men and women communicate as genderlects (JEN-der-lecks; which derives from

C°ined by Deborah Tan^m tte term refe to the word “dialect” and not “derelict”!). Men tend to see the world as a place of hierar-

the fundamental differences between the way

men and women communicate. chical order in which they must struggle to maintain their position. Therefore, they in­

terpret comments more often as challenges to their position and attempt to defend their

independence. Women, on the other hand, see the world more as a net­work of interactions, and their goal is to form connections and avoid iso­lation. Women have been found to use more rapport-talk, which establishes relationships and connections, whereas men use more report-talk, which imparts knowledge (Eckstein & Goldman, 2001). Tannen (1990) asserts that women use conversations to establish and maintain intimacy, whereas men use conversations to establish status. She believes that there are a “male” and a “female” mode of communication.

Before we go into more detail about other gender differences in com­munication, it’s important to note that often when a gender difference is 1 revealed, it’s common to view the male way as normative and the female way as deviating from the norm. When we say “different,” it means that there are gender differences in ways of speaking that need to be under­stood. If they are not, the contrasting conversational styles can lead to frus­tration, disappointment, and misunderstandings. This is not to imply that one way is better than another—they are simply “different.”

Language flow is different for men and women. Men believe that women constantly interrupt them, but women claim that men interrupt them more than other women do. The research shows that men are more likely than women to interrupt when others are speaking (Athenstaedt et al., 2004). Tannen responds that, in keeping with a report-talk style, men tend to speak one at a time, and so another comment is seen as an interrup­tion. Women use more overlapping talk, in which it is all right for a second person to speak over the first, as long as that second person does not change the subject to try to take over as the primary speaker. When men interrupt women, they expect to become the primary speaker; when women interrupt, they overlap without expecting that the conversation will turn to them. Men are also more likely to answer questions that are not specifically addressed to them.

Question: I am really confused about my relationship with my girl­friend. I thought we communicate really well, but now I don’t know what to think. She told me about a problem she is having with an­other friend. I listened for hours and tried to offer some solutions to help her improve the situation. To my surprise, she became angry with me! What’s going on?

Men and women also differ in how they respond to problems. Men tend to view conver­sations as ways to exchange information or fix problems (Gard, 2000). Women tend to try to confirm the other person’s feelings and empathize. In your case, you listened to your girlfriend and moved on to trying to fix the problem. Perhaps she was looking for your emotional support and some TLC, instead of concrete answers to her dilemma. This is a common problem that couples make in conversation. Women resent men’s tenden­cies to try to fix their emotional problems, and men complain that women refuse to take action to solve their problems.

Men use more nonstandard forms of speech (slang); talk more about money and business; refer more to time, space, quantity, destructive actions, physical movements, and objects; and use more hostile verbs than women. Women are more supportive in speech, are more polite and expressive, talk more about home and family, and use more words implying feelings, evaluations, interpretations, and psychological states (Tannen, 1990). When stating an opinion, women often end their statement with tag questions (e. g., “It’s really cold in here, isn’t it?” or “That’s an interesting idea, isn’t it?”) in order to invite discussion and minimize disagreements. They also use disclaimers (e. g., “I may be wrong, but. . .”), question statements (“Am I off base here?”; Vanfossen, 1996), and hedge words such as “sort of,” “kind of,” “aren’t you,” or “would you mind?” All of these

TABLE 6.1 Gender and Communication

Although communication styles can vary widely within each gender, there are some general similarities. Following are some findings on typical gender differences in both verbal and nonverbal communication. The question is, do these potential differences mean anything? Researchers suggest that the differences may contribute to a perception that men are more self-confident and authoritative. Women Men

Use language for information Engage in "report" talk Use few tag questions, disclaimers, and question statements Use few hedge words Use verbal strategies to dictate what should and can be done ("We should. . ." or "We can. . .") Interpret women’s verbal strategies as "wishy-washy" and based on an inability to be decisive Use playful insults and teasing Listen to solve problems Do not engage in trouble-matching Enjoy disagreement and argument Are more likely to interrupt Are less likely to allow an interruption to be successful In formal group settings, talk more often and talk for longer time periods Spend more time talking in mixed-gender groups Furrow brow and/or squint when listening Display few facial expressions in listening feedback Are less sensitive to communication cues Assume more reclined positions when sitting; lean backward when listening Gesture away from the body Take up more physical space when sitting or standing, with arms and legs stretched out away from their body Tend to avoid direct eye contact during conversation Misinterpret women’s direct eye contact as flirtatious or sexual Talk more about what they did, where they went, and less about relationships with others Tend to take verbal rejection less personally

Use language to increase intimacy Engage in "rapport" talk Use tag questions, disclaimers, and question statements Use hedge words Use verbal strategies to build group morale (framing questions such as "Should we. . .?" or "Can we. . .?") Interpret men’s verbal strategies as bossy and impolite Use compliments Listen to gain better understanding of speaker’s experience Relate similar experiences to match speakers’ troubles Seek agreement and an avoidance of disagreement Are more likely to interrupt other women if interrupting at all Are more likely to allow an interruption to be successful In formal group settings, talk less often and for shorter time periods Spend less time talking in mixed-gender groups Head-nod and smile when listening Display facial expressions and emotional reactions Pay more attention to nonverbal communication cues Assume more forward positions when sitting; lean forward when listening Gesture toward the body Take up less physical space, sitting with arms and legs toward their body Maintain direct eye contact during conversation Misinterpret men’s lack of eye contact as disinterest Talk more about how they feel and more about relationships with others Tend to take verbal rejection more personally

Source: Adapted from Coates, 1986; Glass, 1992; Lawhorn, 2005; Tannen, 1990; Uman, 2004; Vanfossen, 1996.

tend to decrease the speaker’s perceived assertiveness of speech. Although tag questions are used frequently in English, they are not used as much in other languages. In fact, the French and Swedish languages lack an equivalent feature (Cheng & Warren, 2001). There have been criticisms of Tannen’s genderlect theory. One of the biggest criticisms has been in her unidimensional approach of studying gender differences in communication. To Tannen, gender is based on biological sex. Therefore, all women communicate one way and all men another way. Another model agrees there are gender differ­ences, but these differences are based on one’s gender role instead of bi­ological sex (Edwards & Hamilton, 2004). So, not all men use domi­nance in their speech and not all women use cooperative speech. Men who are higher in nurturance engage in more cooperative speech, whereas women who are lower in nurturance engage in less (Edwards & Hamilton, 2004). With all of these differences, men and women are not necessarily destined to try to communicate over a giant chasm of misunderstanding. First of all, these ways of communicating are only tendencies, and plenty of men and women are good at different techniques of communication. Second, understanding and patience play a key role. Those willing to

work at improving their communication skills can significantly enhance their intimate relationships both with members of their own and the other gender.