To the Editor:
Perhaps I just have sick humor, but I am amused when people wave their arms around under the banner of feminism or saving the world or what-have-you while contradicting themselves in the content of their flamboyant ravings. Amanda de la Rosa's letter "Dartmouth Women: Say It Like You Mean It!" [Feb. 12, 1997, The Dartmouth] is one such example. Her charge, I assume under the guise of feminist ideals, is that women's questions constitute "wishy-washy submissive nonsense," whereas instead women should state their opinions firmly and resolutely.
Have you ever wondered why women might tend to ask questions more than men? Deborah Tannen, linguist and author of "You Just Don't Understand! Women and Men in Conversation," suggests that women primarily value community and relationships, whereas men care more about status.
If this is the case, then wouldn't it make sense for women to ask questions? In hopes that they would be able to draw others into the conversation, make others feel comfortable rather than threatened, and maintain equality, it is natural that they would ask others for their thoughts. If men care about achieving one-up-man-ship as Tannen suggests, then their propensity to posit statements would equally seem to be a very effective means of achieving their goals. Conversation becomes a medium for competing and, in this game, some will win and some will lose. Is either of these approaches inherently right or wrong?
De la Rosa's letter implied that an emphasis on interpersonal rapport (which is expressed by asking questions) is somehow wrong, and that getting one's point across should be more important than building community. Perhaps more fundamentally, when she says, "Voice your opinions as if they have periods (or exclamation marks!) at the end of them!" she implies that if women want to live in a man's world, then they need to learn to talk like men. Is this really meant to be a feminist approach?
It is obvious that, although she endorses a "typically male" form of communicating, she does not endorse adhering to the "typically male" norm of using rationality rather than emotionality in her discourses. So by exactly what criteria does she choose when to endorse "typically male" norms or "typically female?" And in the first place, why does she (and Tannen, for that matter) try to support "feminism" by attributing certain tendencies to gender rather than individuals' personalities or goals, when in fact feminism is a philosophy based on ideals of equality and the freedom to be oneself and to pursue one's goals without regard to gender?
