This week’s topic is communication, which in our society comes in forms influenced by gender, among

1) Communication
1) Communication
This week’s topic is communication, which in our society comes in forms influenced by gender, among
other factors. Communication encompasses verbal, written, and body language, along with various forms
of print, analog, and digital media—all processes that are inflected by power relations. In US society,
face-to-face as well as mass media communications are often shaped by unequal power relations,
including “the absence of women in the communications industries, as well as the capitalist system that
sells products and avoids offending potential consumers with more realistic images. If we add race,
sexual orientation, class, disability, and age to what is missing in the centers of power, this absence of
many underrepresented groups serves to eliminate accurate images of many groups of people in the
media” (Disch 222).
One of the most pervasive ideologies about communication in our society is that men and women inhabit
different “communication cultures.” Popular books like John Gray’s Men Are From Mars, Women Are
From Venus have propagated notions like women being more emotional and attuned to relationships
whereas men tend to lack empathy with others and are less emotionally expressive. According to such
pop psychological theories, women’s greater attunement towards others is intrinsic and qualifies them to
be better listeners, friends and parents than men, while men are more prone to being emotionally
unavailable and unsupportive of others. According to another popular book, You Just Don’t Understand,
author Deborah Tannen argues that women “use their unique conversational style to show involvement,
connection, and participation, while men use speech to indicate independence and position in a
hierarchy”—and because of their differing communication styles, men often interrupt women. If we are to
go by the prevailing pop psychology, men and women’s different communication cultures destine them for
constant misunderstandings, “ships eternally passing each other in the night” (227).
In “Men and Women Are from Earth,” Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers argue that such notions are
simply not true and are not backed by empirical evidence. Men do not constantly interrupt women,
especially in situations where women are in positions of power. As one study shows, it is power, more
than sex differences that influence who gets interrupted, how, and when. Citing various research studies
that show that men and women’s communication styles and emotional dispositions are more similar than
different, Barnett and Rivers conclude that the “difference rhetoric can harm both men and women” (230).
By continuing to spread such sex-based stereotypes, both men and women will continue to expect less of
each other and act based on gendered expectations, thereby turning such rigid stereotypes into
“self-fulfilling prophecies” (229).
2) “The New Momism” by Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels
2) “The New Momism” by Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels
In “The New Momism,” Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels chart a “set of ideals, norms, and
practices” that have emerged and gained in strength since the 1980s. Propagated in large part by
mainstream mass media, the “new momism” or “intensive mothering” involves “honey-hued ideals of
perfect motherhood” in which “motherhood is eternally fulfilling and rewarding, that is always the best and
most important thing you do, that there is only a narrowly prescribed way to do it right, and that if you
don’t love each and every second of it there’s something really wrong with you” (237). Such ideals,
Douglas and Michaels argue, simply create impossibly high standards for mothers for whom the everyday
realities of mothering are often difficult and messy. They write that the new momism is defined by “the
insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best
caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire
physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (238).
With the cutbacks to social programs for mothers and families beginning with the Reagan administration
in the 80s, many women with children were in situations with few structural aids and collapsing public
institutions. At the same time, the conservative Republic administrations that governed the US from 1980
to 1992 engaged in a moralizing practice of “mother blaming” in which mothers were charged with failing
to raise fit future citizens. According to this ethos, mothers were not only supposed to be individually
responsible for the well-being of their children, but they were also shouldered with the moral burden of the
fate of the nation.
Along with media dissemination of images of bad welfare, teenaged, and “crack” mothers, arose
impossibly perfect ideals of the “good mother,” often depicted as white, affluent, and heterosexual.
Buttressed by Martha Stewart-style representations of domesticity, the good mother is supposed to be an
excellent housekeeper, cook, engage in handmade crafts and other stimulating activities with her children,
and participate in furthering and ensuring their proper education. Even if a woman works a full-time job,
she is still supposed to make her children a priority and not expect her male partner to pick up the
slack—in short, she needs to be a superwoman. Douglas and Michaels argue that these ideals are
prohibitive and serve to redomesticate women who had benefitted from the feminist movements of the
70s.
The “contorting contradiction” of the “good mother” who also works is that she is encouraged to be tough,
competitive, and behave like men on the job while at the same time being patient, compassionate, and
selfless at home. The irony is that both stay-at-home mothers and working mothers, assert Douglas and
Michaels, “get to be failures. The ethos of intensive mothering has lower status in our culture
(‘stay-at-home mothers are boring’), but occupies a higher moral ground (‘working mothers are
neglectful’)” (244). Mainstream mass media have been staging “mommy wars,” which pit stay-at-home
mothers against each other, even though the reality is that many women have either been one or another
at various points in their lives. In turn, women who are not mothers get cut out of the picture.
QUESTIONS
1- Gendered communication cultures
This week’s topic is communication, which in our society comes in forms influenced by gender, among
other factors. Communication encompasses verbal, written, and body language, along with various forms
of print, analog, and digital media—all processes that are inflected by power relations. In US society,
face-to-face as well as mass media communications are often shaped by unequal power relations,
including “the absence of women in the communications industries, as well as the capitalist system that
sells products and avoids offending potential consumers with more realistic images. If we add race,
sexual orientation, class, disability, and age to what is missing in the centers of power, this absence of
many underrepresented groups serves to eliminate accurate images of many groups of people in the
media” (Disch 222).
One of the most pervasive ideologies about communication in our society is that men and women inhabit
different “communication cultures.” Popular books like John Gray’s Men Are From Mars, Women Are
From Venus have propagated notions like women being more emotional and attuned to relationships
while men tend to lack empathy and are less emotionally expressive. According to such pop
psychological theories, women’s greater attunement towards others is intrinsic and qualifies them to be
better listeners, friends and parents than men, while men are more prone to being emotionally unavailable
and unsupportive of others. According to another popular book, You Just Don’t Understand, author
Deborah Tannen argues that women “use their unique conversational style to show involvement,
connection, and participation, while men use speech to indicate independence and position in a
hierarchy”—and because of their differing communication styles, men often interrupt women. If we are to
go by the prevailing pop psychology, men and women’s different communication cultures destine them for
constant misunderstandings, “ships eternally passing each other in the night” (227).
In “Men and Women Are from Earth,” Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers argue that such notions are
simply not true and are not backed by empirical evidence. Men do not constantly interrupt women,
especially in situations where women are in positions of power. As one study shows, it is power, more
than sex differences that influence who gets interrupted, as well as how, and when. Citing various
research studies that show that men and women’s communication styles and emotional dispositions are
more similar than different, Barnett and Rivers conclude that the “difference rhetoric can harm both men
and women” (230). By continuing to spread such sex-based stereotypes, both men and women will
continue to expect less of each other and act based on gendered expectations, thereby turning such rigid
stereotypes into “self-fulfilling prophecies” (229).
Do you agree with Barnett and Rivers’ argument that sex-based communication differences are based
more in fantasy than fact? What do you make of popular notions that men and women are essentially
different and are destined to misunderstand each other?
2- The New Momism” – Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels
In “The New Momism,” Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels chart a “set of ideals, norms, and
practices” that have emerged and gained in strength since the 1980s. Propagated in large part by
mainstream mass media, the “new momism” or “intensive mothering” involves “honey-hued ideals of
perfect motherhood” in which “motherhood is eternally fulfilling and rewarding, that is always the best and
most important thing you do, that there is only a narrowly prescribed way to do it right, and that if you
don’t love each and every second of it there’s something really wrong with you” (237). Such ideals,
Douglas and Michaels argue, simply create impossibly high standards for mothers for whom the everyday
realities of mothering are often difficult and messy. They write that the new momism is defined by “the
insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best
caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire
physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (238).
With the cutbacks to social programs for mothers and families beginning with the Reagan administration
in the 80s, many women with children were in situations with few structural aids and collapsing public
institutions. At the same time, the conservative Republic administrations that governed the US from 1980
to 1992 engaged in a moralizing practice of “mother blaming” in which mothers were charged with failing
to raise fit future citizens. According to this ethos, mothers were not only supposed to be individually
responsible for the well-being of their children, but they were also shouldered with the moral burden of the
fate of the nation.
Along with media dissemination of images of bad welfare, teenaged, and “crack” mothers, arose
impossibly perfect ideals of the “good mother,” often depicted as white, affluent, and heterosexual.
Buttressed by Martha Stewart-style representations of domesticity, the good mother is supposed to be an
excellent housekeeper, cook, engage in handmade crafts and other stimulating activities with her children,
and participate in furthering and ensuring their proper education. Even if a woman works a full-time job,
she is still supposed to make her children a priority and not expect her male partner to pick up the
slack—in short, she needs to be a superwoman. Douglas and Michaels argue that these ideals are
prohibitive and serve to redomesticate women who had benefitted from the feminist movements of the
70s.
The “contorting contradiction” of the “good mother” who also works is that she is encouraged to be tough,
competitive, and behave like men on the job while at the same time being patient, compassionate, and
selfless at home. The irony is that both stay-at-home mothers and working mothers, assert Douglas and
Michaels, “get to be failures. The ethos of intensive mothering has lower status in our culture
(‘stay-at-home mothers are boring’), but occupies a higher moral ground (‘working mothers are
neglectful’)” (244). Mainstream mass media have been staging “mommy wars,” which pit stay-at-home
mothers against each other, even though the reality is that many women have either been one or another
at various points in their lives. In turn, women who are not mothers get cut out of the picture.
What do you think about the “new momism”? Do you find that the ideals and practices of the new
momism dominate US culture and media representations? What do you make of the double bind of
working mothers who feel pressured to “do it all”—be attentive caregivers and successful career women?
If you are a mother, do you find yourself influenced by ideals of perfect motherhood?

Published by

Research Helper

View all posts