Preserving Face

[preservingface]

Throwing a party this Friday. 3 DJ's, 2 Rappers, 1 Graffiti artist, and 1 photographer. 

Wu-Tang Club's end of the school year bash.

Behind Read. Bros on King st.

[preservingface]

Me.

Am am at the end of my Communications 215 course at the lovely College of Charleston. At the beginning of the course I asked to kind of evaluate what kind of a person I was, and how I communicate.

Not much has changed in the way that I communicate, but now I can more readily identify my communication style. We talked a lot about gender in the course and how different gender is from sex. At the start of the class I thought gender was a very biological thing, but the more I learned, the more I understood that gender is more how we are, not what we are.

There are a lot of aspects about me that are very masculine. I am blunt, opinionated, and goal oriented, but I have some feminine speaking characteristics as well. For instance, I often use language to establish equality with other by using statements like, "I know how you feel," and, "I have been through the same thing."

This course has really helped me feel good about embracing the feminine aspects of what makes me, me. I believe that there is no one on earth that is completely male or female. We all have different styles of communicating and different ways of being and we are the way we are because of how we were raised and the things we have experienced in our lives.

Over the course of this past year I have made it a point to become more comfortable with just being alone with myself. I have started going to movies, dinners, and other activities alone. In the past I never really enjoyed being by myself. I was constantly hungry for human interaction, and I still am in many ways, but I learned to enjoy keeping myself company. When I took the time to just be with myself I learned more about me.

I have flaws, as does everyone, and I used to think that it was my goal in life to eliminate them, but to hell with that. I am still trying to come to terms with my cons and quirks, but overall I am more content with them. For instance, I can be a real obstinate jerk sometimes. I can be really stubborn and fight for what I want. Many may see this as a bad thing, but from this class I learned that there are benefits to this style. It can be useful in goal oriented situations in that I always have my eye on the prize and will find a way to attain it. Yeah, there are downsides to it too, but hey that's who I am.

At the end of the day, I have to go to bed in this skin, so I might as well be comfortable in it.

[preservingface]

My Face

I am going to talk about my Blog's name sake theory and how it pertains to me, Preserving Face. Face is the self-image that we want to present to others, and it also take into account that we realize other people are trying to maintain their face as well. What do we do when we mess up and show a side of ourselves that we don't feel reflects who we are? Corrective facework. Corrective facework consists, "of messages that an individual can use to restore one's own face of help another restore face." So say I am too drunk at a party and do something embarrassing. I will try to restore my face by, say, not drinking so much, apologizing to the host, or making excuses for myself. One thing that we need to be very aware of nowadays is how we present ourselves on the internet. Many people use the net with reckless abandon and post any banal thought that slips into their head, or perhaps suggestive pictures. I am guilty of having a couple too many party pictures on my Facebook, but nothing out of the ordinary really (see I'm preserving my face right there). One TA from my Comm 215 class did research on me via the internet to see what she could dig up. She said that for the most part my online self is alright, but that I may want to watch what pictures of me are online.

I don't really think of myself as a big party animal and don't mind being seen with a drink in my hand online. I am 21 and legally allowed to drink and I sometimes like to cut loose and be a little wild (not in the sense of abusing alcohol, just being a lively party person). I think that the face I show online is appropriate enough, but when it comes time for job interviews I will do a bit of editing.

[preservingface]

The Return of Skeletor!

Dr. John M. Gottman has done extensive research in the field of marriage and more importantly divorce. He has studied couples and how the argue, or get along, for years and has become incredibly accurate in predicting what coupes will stay together, and which ones aren't "meant to be". Gottman can predict with 87% accuracy which couples will stay together or get divorced within 4-6 years, and 81% within 7-9 years of marriage.

Although Gottman mainly studied married couples, much o

f his research, and advice, pertains to couples that aren't married as well. Gottman points out what he likes to call the "4 Horsemen of Conflict" which are essentially the warning signs for a couple likely to fail. In an earlier blog post I wrote about a past relationship I had with a person if have dubbed "Skeletor". I will use our relationship once more to help explain the 4 horsemen of conflict in a relationship.

1. Criticism: It is one thing to complain about an action that someone does that you don't like, and another to attack their character. When I was with Skeletor our first fights were very tame and about small problems that we could easily label, or point out, like, "I wish you wouldn't take so long to get ready to go out." or other harmless problems, but during the period of our relationship when things were really rocky I would accuse her of being selfish or too emotionally distant. The main difference between these types of arguments is that in the later case I was criticizing how she was and not what she did. 2. Defensiveness: Defensiveness is really common. People don't like to be the party that is in the wrong so they will sometimes pass the blame back to their significant other. Sometimes, if I were asking Skeletor to try and be more open with me she would retort by saying that I was too demanding. We both were guilty of this at times because neither of us wanted to be in the wrong. I remember when she had so rough stuff going on in her life (with substance abuse mainly). I would try and talk to her, and I guess attempt to help her out, and she would deny that she had a problem and accuse me of being too uptight. Yes, that is a normal reaction, but also not too healthy for a couple, according to Gottman. 3. Contempt: This one is a given. You feel contempt for someone when you have lost respect for them. In my opinion this is the most painful horseman. It is still a touchy subject for me to go into detail about this as it pertains to this relationship, but in a nutshell at the very end of it, we had nothing but contempt for one another. We couldn't stand each other as people and any love we once had for one another had gone. I know, pretty sad right? 4: Stonewalling: The final horseman is stonewalling. This is when a someone withdraws and begins to cut off communication with their SO. In my last post involving Skeletor I mentioned a period of time in our relationship filled with awkward silence. There just wasn't anything left to say to each other really. When all of these ingredients are combined, you are, essentially, left with a recipe for disaster, according to Dr. Gottman. It would be smart to look out for these signs if you are in a relationship and do something about it if you see them occur. Author's note: The name "Skeletor" is not meant to be an attack in any way. I just thought it was really funny to pick such an arbitrary name for someone whose anonymity I wanted to protect. It's for the LOLs.

[preservingface]

Microexpressions: Hard and Fast Evidence?

According to blifaloo.com a microexpression is, "a momentary involuntary facial expression -- that people unconsciously display when they are hiding an emotion. They are quick & intense expressions of concealed emotion." Microexpressions are very quick and sometimes hard to pick up on. The research shows that some people are better than others at picking up on them. For those who are good at reading them, microexpressions can be very telling and have the potential to tell a lot about the person sending them. I did a microexpression test on BBC's website to try and decipher whether a smile was fake or genuine. Out of 20 questions I got 18 correct, which is pretty good. You can take the smile test at this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/ With smiles, research shows that genuine ones trigger some involuntary muscle contractions especially in the eyes and the cheeks. The thing with microexpressions is that they are involuntary therefor if you are good at reading them, like Tim Roth's character Dr. Lightman in the hit show Lie to Me, the theory is that they never lie, however some scholars disagree with this statement.

Author of the microexpression article on blifaloo.com believes that, "An [sic] important thing to remember about micro-expressions is that they only show what someone is feeling...not whether they lying per-se, and not what they are thinking. The micro-expression only tells you their knee-jerk emotional state." This is just another opinions however. I think that microexpressions can be very powerful if you are truly good at reading them, but you should also take them with a grain of salt and not outright accuse someone of lying if their expressions don't match their statements.

[preservingface]

Uncertainty Reduction

Meeting new people is always fun. Whenever I meet someone new it always feels like an interview at first. This is natural though according to Berger and Calabrese, communication theorists. In their Uncertainty Reduction Theory they state, basically, that when you have a high level of uncertainty about someone, you will try and reduce it. There is no other time when you are more uncertain of someone that when you first meet them. I am going to go through Berger and Calabrese's 8 axioms of uncertainty and how they pertain to me and a new person I will call "J" when we first met. Axiom 1. As verbal communication increases, you uncertainty levels decrease and your communication increases. I first met J at Kulture Klash last year and we exchanged information. We set a date to meet up at a local bar the next week. When we met up our conversation was mainly the basics, i.e. where are you from, do you go to school, etc. The more we spoke the less uncertain of each other we were and we hung out more. Axiom 2. As welcoming nonverbal cues increase, uncertainty decreases. After a short while J and I would hug when we met, high five, and all the other basic friend nonverbals. As a result, we were more comfortable with one another, therefor uncertainty levels dropped. Axiom 3. The more uncertainty there is, the more info seeking behaviors you use, and vice-versa. When I didn't know much about J I asked a lot of question to find out more about her. I learned she was from Florida and she has a brother, etc. As my uncertainty about her decreased I asked less questions like this. Axiom 4. If uncertainty levels are high, intimacy levels are lower and vice-versa. This doesn't really pertain to J and my relationship, but it is good to know that the more you know about someone, the more intimate you can be. Axiom 5. The more uncertain you are about someone, the more reciprocal communication you will use with them. When J and I first met we were obviously trying to figure out what the other person was all about. So there was a lot of questions that when answered, were followed up with a, "what about you?" Axiom 6. The more similarities you share the more uncertainty will decrease. J and I found out we like a lot of the same bands and we knew a bunch of the same people. Axiom 7. As uncertainty decreases the more you will like someone and vice-versa. This is pretty universal and it has been true about anyone I have ever met. The more you know about each other the more you like them. The more I got to know J the more I wanted to be around her and have her as a friend. Axiom 8. The final axiom is if you have shared networks, uncertainty will decrease. We had quite a few shared networks, J and I. We knew a lot of the same people and the more we hung out the more connections we found. There were also obvious networks like: we are both in our 20's and students.

[preservingface]

What's Good Family?

There are a lot of different types of families out there. I'm sure a lot of you reading have unique family experiences that could compare to my own. I'm don't intend to say that any family style is better than one another, but point of some differences both in the structure of family and how families communicate amongst themselves.

No two families are really alike. The are joint families where two families are combined, single parents, nuclear families, polyamourous families, families with homosexual parents, you name it, it's out there. It is important to recognize that your family may not be quite like the neighbors'.

Comm scholars Ascan Koerner and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick that there are four different styles of family communication. The styles are dependent on Conversation and Conformity levels. Conversation is the degree to which family encourage and take part in conversation with one another. Conformity levels are characterized as how much freedom of opinion families have when communicating together. Based on these criteria here are the styles:

Consensual Families: Conversation is high and members of the family are encouraged to share their beliefs . . . that is the beliefs that the parents deem correct. Conformity levels are really high and every member is expected to keep with the status quo.

Pluralistic Families: Conversation levels are high, and conformity levels are low. Members of the family are encouraged to speak their minds, free thought is encouraged. Parents in Pluralistic families may ask their child's opinions on important issues.

Protective Families: Conformity is high and conversation low. I think of this as the military family in that the parents are the majors and the kids are lowly pawns, expected to follow the rules and speak when spoken to.

Laissez-Faire Families: Everything is low, both conversation and conformity. If the kids are allowed to have their own opinions it is not because the parents are progressive, it's that they don't give a shit. Conflict rarely occurs.

read more after the jump

So, what is my family like? I come from a pluralistic family, well actually I would say in between pluralistic and consensual (but leaning a lot more towards the former). My parents always encouraged my brother and my ideas and opinions. We always have good discussions at the dinner table every night and conversation was always encouraged, but it was nice to talk with the family so we didn't need much encouragement to begin with. The reason I say we are slightly consensual is that there are/were certain issues that we were expected to agree on, at least as kids, like religion and things of that nature. As I grew older though, my parents recognized that I would form my own opinions on things, especially spiritual matters. 

I spoke with my roommate before writing this about what his family was like. I had talked with him about the subject before so I already had some knowledge. He comes from single parent families. Both of his parents are very present in his life, but happen to be separated. In both cases, his family is very pluralistic. He has an almost friendship like relationship with his mom and his dad as well, maybe slightly less though. He was always encouraged to speak his mind and form his own opinions. His parents have been, and remain to be present in his life. He is always getting letters and packages from his mom (Why don't I get any packages? :'( ) and his dad lives in Charleston so they see each other often.

All in all, I think that pluralistic families are the best in that they foster healthy relationships and promote critical thinking, but that's because I'm used to it. I think we can all take comfort in the fact that there is always a family out there that is way more dysfunctional than our own! 

[preservingface]

Speak Your Mind

Message Design Logics - O'Keefe "People who have different views about the nature and function of communication will construct different types of messages." According to O'Keefe there are three different Message Design Logics (MDL): Expressive, Conventional, and Rhetorical. Expressive MDL is a sender based method of communication where the sender is focused on conveying their feelings. Conventional MDL is a rule based method where the sender views communication as a series of rules. The Rhetorical MDL style focuses on communication as a negotiation tool. I am, admittedly, an expressive MDL person. I, generally, say whatever is on my mind and use communication as a means of letting others know how I feel. This has gotten me into trouble before. I occasionally have trouble holding back what I think in the wrong situations and I have offended others as a result, but my intentions are true. I don't mean to be offensive, I just want to speak my mind. Expressive MDL values, "openness, honesty, and clarity." Expressive MDL communicators generally mistrust people who seem "overly strategic" in their communication. So an expressive receiver views rhetorical senders as too elaborate and they distrust them. I like to think that I don't do this so much, but I can't help thinking of times when I thought someone was off because of their communicating style. One downside to being an expressive communicator is a lack of tact. I am not very good at being political in the sense that I am reckless with my speech. Conventional MDL communicators view people like me as being rude and embarrassing. I just don't have that much shame I suppose. The problem with two people use different MDL's they don't see that it is an issue of communication differences. Instead they view difficulties on bad intention and unpalatable character, (O'Keefe, Lambert, and Lambert '97) and that can lead to fighting...

MDL Journal source

-Thomas F.

[preservingface]

The Unravelling

Mark Knapp is a homie. He did a great job in his Stages of Relationships model of laying out the steps that relationships take when growing as well as falling apart. From Wikipedia, the simple definition of Knapp's Relational Development model is as follows: "The Knapp's Relational Development Model is a theoretical model to map the progression of an interpersonal relationship between two parties."

In this model I will focus on one stage (perhaps the most painful of the stages) of coming apart, officially known as Knapp's Relationship termination model. The stage I will focus on is stagnating, "During the stagnating stage, the individuals avoid discussing the relationship because they think they know what the other will say. Others begin to take notice that something is wrong." (from abacon.com).

I have been through this stage before, and it lasted a lot longer for my significant other and I than for most (I would assume). Back during high school I dated a girl, who for anonymity sake I will name Skeletor.

Skeletor and I dated for quite some time, especially in terms of high school relationships. In the beginning it was fantastic. We hit it off immediately and were basically inseparable. We never went a day without seeing one another and after a couple of months became physically intimate, which at that age can be confused with love. This "bliss" lasted for months and we got along really well and shared many great experiences. This obviously didn't last forever.

As I was opening up more to Skeletor and sharing my innermost feelings, she closed up. Whatever reason she had for not sharing her feelings was her business, but I couldn't really accept it, or be comfortable with it. I felt like I was doing all the "work" and she owed it to me to be forthcoming with her feelings (yeah, that shit doesn't really fly I found out). Like a jerk I would try and pressure her into sharing things with me which, of course, would just make her clam up even more.

This ended up in a kind of stalemate, where the Stagnating stages comes in. I was fed up with her not wanting to connect with me, so I closed off more, and she was contented in not talking. We had a routine everyday where I would pick her up at her school after I got out of class, slightly earlier than her, and we would go do something. Before, this was the highlight of my day, but once the stagnating stage set in I would dread it. I still picked her up however because it was like my chore that I was expected to do. I remember car rides where I would be driving, her next to me, and not one word would be said the entire trip. It was gut wrenching, and you could cut the tension with a spoon. At this point, I think we both knew we would never be going back to the fun sunny days. This stage was followed by some serious stuff that could honestly be made into a movie (not exaggerating), but all in all, this stage of silence was the worst. The epic poo-storm to come I could handle, but the silence tears you apart. Thanks to my boy Knapp I can now see, very clearly, the proceeding and following steps of that, and other, relationships.

Here is some more info on Mark Knapp. He did a lot of other cool research too!

-Thomas F.

[preservingface]

Love Styles: Storge

Love styles theory was developed by John Lee, first in 1973. There are 5 different love styles: Storge (friend love), Agapic (selfless love), Manic (low power, dependent), Pragma (logic love), Ludic (flirtatious, game playing love), and Eros (passionate love). I will focus on the Storge love style because I rated highest on this and two of my friends, who date each other, are both Storges.

The Storge style is pretty common. 66% of people who take the love styles test rate high in this category. Storges have strong bonds and enjoy spending time with one another. These lovers find common interests with one another and are generally very comfortable just hanging out together. I rated highest on Storge when I took the love styles test, but a common flaw in the test is that many people want to have the qualities of Storges, so test results can be skewed. For the most part I believe I do fit this category, but it is also my idealized image of what kind of a relationship I would like to have.

I had a sneaking suspicion, after learning about love styles in my Comm class, that my 2 friends who I will call James and Jasmine were both Storges. My suspicions were confirmed after I had them take the test. Hard core Storges. These two are inseparable and are happiest just chilling out and watching TV or going to Yoga together. They aren't overly flirtatious in public and seem like old friends. A common trait of Storges that date each other is that it forms out of a previous friendship. Jasmine and James were friends long before it turned into something romantic and they share a lot of common interests.

There are examples of Storge lovers in the movies and TV as well. One example is the movie Zach and Miri make a Porno. In the film Zach and Miri start out as roommates and lifelong friends, but eventually it becomes something more.

And if you haven't seen the film, the title says it all. Things get very complicated.

For more information on different love styles check out the Wikipedia Page on Lee's theory.

-Thomas F.

[preservingface]

Hofstede Showdown: Japan v. America

All information on Hofstede's cultural dimensions was found in the textbook Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life by Marianne Dainton and Elaine D. Zelley.

I have never lived in Japan, but I have traveled there on three separate occasions and I am going back this coming summer (hopefully). In eighth grade I took part in an exchange program through my school. It was through this program that I met my good friend Ryutaro Toya. I was so excited to go to Japan to stay with him for a few weeks, but I wasn't prepared for the cultural differences between our respective countries. According to Geert Hofstede there are different dimensions to consider in regards to different cultures. I will compare/contrast some aspects of American and Japanese culture, and add some personal anecdotes. Uncertainty Avoidance

Certain cultures do not like uncertainty more than others. According to Hofstede "People within a culture [of high uncertainty avoidance] are made nervous by situations which they perceive as unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable." On the other hand culture with low uncertainty avoidance tend to be more alright with uncertainty. One situation that came up on my first voyage to the land of the rising sun is a perfect example of this. I had a minor fever and I didn't mind too much, but my host family insisted on taking me to the hospital to see what was wrong with me. In my opinion this is an example of Japan's high uncertainty avoidance trait, so they wanted to make sure there was nothing really wrong with me.

Long Term and Short Term Orientation

Cultures with long term orientation, like Japan, center on strong work ethic and employees keep their eyes on the long term prize. Short term oriented cultures, such as America, long for instant gratification. In Tokyo, where Ryutaro lives, you see evidence of this everywhere. Businessmen work exhausting hours and are often away from home for long stretches of time. There are even pod hotels, which are tiny little pods in a row for overnight business stays. Workers are always hustling. 

For more information on Hofstede here is a link to his website.

-Thomas F.

[preservingface]

Playboy Magazine: Hyper Masculinity at its Finest

Was this the obvious choice for a magazine displaying sexism and the promotion of hyper masculine qualities? Yes, so let's dive in. 

I have been getting Playboy magazine shipped to my apartment since I moved in this past August. To clarify, I do not have a subscription to the publication. A past tenant simply forgot to send them a change of address notice, but I am not really complaining. I am not going to try and sound all high and mighty and act like I don't enjoy looking at nude or scantly clad women on occasion, or reading the interviews in the magazine, one month's being with Anthony Bourdain, my foodie idol. It is a decent escapist publication at best and I don't tend to take much of it to heart, but this isn't about how I view it. I will try and look at the magazine from the point of view of another reader, one from an all together different culture.

Playboy's Idyllic Man

 From page one of the holiday issue men are being told what is expected of them. The first ad in the issue is one for Seiko watches featuring a popular US soccer player. It gives off the impression that men should be athletic and muscular, and appreciate the finer things (Seiko watches). Being a man means buying nice things and being concerned with sport is the message it sends. Ad after ad we see men with chiseled bodies with a sultry woman in tow, completely enamored with her lover's body and status, or at least wardrobe. The magazine, overall tells us, according to Self Discrepancy Theory, what our ought selves are . . . drinkers, spenders, fighters, and fuckers. I am positive however that this is far away from our actual selves.

Playboy's Idyllic Woman

For women in the magazine it is a little different. Playboy is not trying to speak to women and tell them how they should appear, but tell men what to expect from them. It tells men that women should be sexy creatures with perfect bodies and airbrushed features. We have spoken in our Comm 215 class about how when men have such high expectation for how women should look then we can forget what true beauty is. The women in Playboy are so damned homogenized that they might as well be barbies. This, in turn, makes women have to strive to become like these magazines show women as being. This also corresponds to Self Discrepancy Theory, the ideal self.

At the end of the day...

We are not left in a very good place. Women and men alike have unrealistic images of what to be. Men are left clutching at an idea that if they don't seduce jaw dropping ladies then they are inadequate, and women are objectified and expected to be perfect. In Playboy magazine women are the muted group. They have no say and are affected by floating signifiers (age, sex, sexual orientation).

but I guess that's not the point of Playboy (spoiler alert: it's money).

[preservingface]

The Danger of a Single Story.

[preservingface]

Parents Magazine (Or should I say Parent?)

Pretty much world wide, when people say the word "parent" they automatically think of the mother. The mother's role in our society is to be the one to nurture and look after the well being of the child. Fathers do have a part in raising kids, but they are really only expected to be role models and have a couple of stern talks filled with life lessons, possibly even while throwing a baseball back and forth with said child. Social construction plays a big part in this phenomenon. The more we see in the media (including Parents Magazine) what mothers and fathers are expected to do, the more people will perpetuate this. This effect snowballs until it is the norm for the mother to be the most important caregiver, and the father to not be as close to his child.

On the Parents Magazine website most of the pictures involving a parent and their child left the father figure out all together. On the website there is a small section called "The Dadabase" which is geared toward fathers, but it is very limited. All in all the magazine focuses on the mother's role, and boy does she have a job ahead of her.

After reading a couple of articles a started assuming that babies and toddlers are constantly on either the verge of death, or tears. There are so many warnings about what to feed or not to feed your child, how to help them cope with going to school, and a myriad of steps to take to ensure that your child doesn't end up the village idiot. With all of these rules in place and steps the mother should take to help her little one/s there probably isn't anymore time left in the day for her to do ANYTHING else. Our society paces a big burden upon the shoulders of mothers that with the elimination of these unnecessary messages could be wholly avoidable.

An explanation of these phenomena may be found in a couple of communication theories.

Muted Group Theory

“Man-made language aids in defining, depreciating, and excluding women. Women are less articulate in public because the words and the norms for their use have been devised by men. As women cease to be muted, men will no longer maintain their position of dominance in society” (Griffin, p. A-18).

Women and men are on different playing fields according to this theory. Women, being the passive subjects, slaves of a language devised by men, can't have a fair shake unless language is broken down. At this point, if language is a more gender universal tool then perhaps men and women will not be bogged down by the assumptions of who does what as father and mother.

Standpoint Theory

"We can understand the world better if we explore the margins of society. Our view (standpoint) affects our communication."

A large part of standpoint theory is that those in control tell us what female and male mean. Who is in control then? In contemporary society, the pretty much refers to the media. We get so much of what we believe or feel is "normal" from TV, movies, magazines, etc. Parents magazine in this case is the media source I am referring to. They have the, supposed, power to tell parents what is or isn't normal to do. If Parents magazine is in the position to perpetuate the idea that the mother is the most important figure in a child's development then they can emphasize her role.  

To see if you agree or disagree with me check out the website for Parents Magazine

[preservingface]

(comic by Endless Oragami)

Complements

Over the course of this week I complemented a lot of folks. It is said that over 50% of compliments are denied. This could be in the form of, "I got it on sale", "I am just borrowing this from a friend", "I'm not that great at pool", etc. Diversion counts too. As assigned by my comm proffessor, I took to the streets to give 15 people some love and see if they accepted or denied my compliments, but alas I only completed 13 (Compliments get tiring.) Nevertheless, Here are my results.

My friend Michael. He was dressed nicely after seeing Anderson Cooper live at the Cistern at CofC, so I told him he looked pretty fly. He sarcastically responded with a, "You always look fly." DENIED

My buddy Jeff's mom. I complemented her on her cooking and she said, "Thank you". ACCEPTED

Jeff's dad. I was admiring his Iron Man figurines. He said he had been collecting for a while. NEUTRAL

Kid at the skate park.  Complimented him on his kick flip. He ignored me. DENIED (and hurting)

Roommate. I said, "nice shoes". He said he got them on sale. DENIED

My old roommate Jeffrey. Since I felt pressured to compliment people this one sounded silly. I said, "You are a good athlete dude!". He looked at me like I was crazy. DENIED

My friend Ali. Nice hair. "Thanks!" ACCEPTED

My other roommate Brad. He was playing sax in the living room so I complimented him on his playing. He thanked me. ACCEPTED

Older woman on King St. I commented on her hat and she gave a reply akin to, "Oh this old thing?" DENIED

My friend Angela. She works with kids for an after school program, and I said, "You are really good with those kids." She DENIED the compliment.

My friend Jeff. We were biking together on a 26 mile trip this weekend and at the end I gave him props for his riding. He ACCEPTED

Complimented a girl on the street on her t-shirt. ACCEPTED

My friend Rob. I noticed his desktop background was Star Wars themed and complimented him on it. He said he was actually meaning to change it. DENIED

The final tally

ACCEPTED - 5

NEUTRAL - 1

DENIED - 7

In conclusion, I guess a lot people can't take a compliment...

[preservingface]

Gender and Communication

(image courtesy of Loose Garments Wordpress blog)

The ideal woman/man: What characterizes these and do they exist?

Our society places expectations on men and woman to "be" a certain way depending on their sex. For the record, I am not saying I agree or disagree with any of the following listed items.

For Men

Men are expected to be brave and courageous.

Men are expected to be confident communicators (rivaling boisterous)

Being a man means masking emotions like fear and sadness, but anger is, somehow, okay!

Men are disposable in our society (Think: women and children first in the lifeboats).

Men do not have inherent value in our society. They must prove their worth.

Physically, men are expected to me muscular are effortlessly attractive. 

For Women

Women are expected to require help and attention when needed in our society. Whereas men are disposable, women have inherent "value".

Women are expected to be put together in their looks. (i.e. makeup, hair, clothing).

Women should be emotionally open. 

Women are thought to be more passive communicators. 

These just break the surface.

Read more after the jump!

As a man, I do not believe I fit all of our society's criteria for the typical male. I feel like every man has a feminine side that they either repress or embrace and it is up to the individual to choose this for their self. Some men/women are genuinely uninterested in taking on traits opposite their gender, but others may choose to ignore their inner "insert opposite gender here" traits for fear of social nonconformity of some other outside factor.

Since I was little my parents have stressed the whole "be who you want to be" mantra. I think I actually took it to heart. I had an easy bake oven as a kid and didn't care who knew. I remember a friend form the neighborhood giving me a hard time because it was, as he said, "for girls". For the life of me I still can't figure out who doesn't love cake, much less cake you could say you made yourself. It is shocking how young we learn was it wrong or right in regards to gender roles. Here is a link to an article in the Huffington Post that was originally submitted by another student in my communications class that is relevant to the subject. ARTICLE LINK

Communications: Gender Theory

Marianne Dainton and Elaine D. Zelley introduce a few different gender thories in their textbook, Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life, but the one I agree most with would have to be the Standpoint Theory.

"A standpoint is a position from which you view and understand the world." Essentially the theory posits, for gender purposes, that men and women have different life experiences based on the fact that they are of different sexes so they must communicate differently. Our life experiences shape the way we communicate. This theory, as the book states, has a flaw in that it assumes that women take on the feminine gender and men, masculine. Gender and sex are a bit less jointed today. This flaw aside, this theory makes sense to me.  

-Thomas F.

[staff]

Two days ago, you guys stepped up once again to show the world just how much we care about protecting the Internet. Together, we generated more than 140,000 calls to Senators, spent more than 4,200 hours on the phone with their staffers, and blacked out 650,000 of our blogs to make our point and inspire others to get involved. And what’s more, this was on top of the 90,000 calls we sent to members of the House of Representatives a month ago. Incredible.

It’s now becoming clear just how much impact our action is having. On January 18th, only 31 members of Congress opposed these bills. Just one day later, 101 members of Congress publicly stood with us in opposition. We are being heard.

And as of today, it looks like both the Senate PIPA and House SOPA bills have been shelved, for the moment. It seems pretty likely that the bills won’t pass as written—a big first win. We now hope that Internet companies, the creative community and the content industry join together to innovate and devise new partnerships to combat online piracy. We’re confident there are effective ways to do this without damaging the Internet or diminishing our freedoms.

You’ve made a big difference in keeping the Internet a safe and open place for creators. Thank you again.