Post Seven: How Gender Interaction Changes as We Age

Back in my primary school days, I’ve never had difficulty mingling around with the other girls. We used the terms ‘awak-kita’ (the very polite term for you-I) and it was basically talks about girly stuff i.e. books and ear studs, strictly no talks on boys yet, that formed the crux of our conversations. That was how 7-year old Malay girls would have typically interacted with one another.

On the other hand, I was a little bit hesitant to interact with the boys in class. It wasn’t because I was shy (too naive for such things) but rather, I disliked how rough boys can get when they talk. And that left me to ignore them.

In primary four, unfortunately, I was made to sit in class with the second-naughtiest boy in class. Not only was he disruptive in class, he liked to call people names too! And because of that, I always scolded him to shut him up. It was not surprising that I started to use rough words ever since: ‘kau-aku’ (more harsh terms for you-I in Malay) and words like ‘bodoh’ (stupid) and ‘gila’ (crazy) when talking to him. And that turned me into a tomboy throughout the rest of my primary school years. It was as though I became a boy when I talked to boys and ‘remained’ girlish when talking to girls. How fascinating. Those were the identity-crisis years. I still hated boys then though. =)

Moving on to secondary school, I was in the National Police Cadet Corps. Although I wasn’t as tomboyish as before (maybe wearing a skirt makes me more girlish), it was just second nature for crude words and vulgarities to be hurled at the trainees during training or camp. Not surprisingly, these came mostly from the male instructors. =). And that was the period when I used vulgarities (I’ve stopped immediately after I graduated from secondary school) even outside training. Funnily, when talking to boys, I rarely used vulgarities (in an attempt to maintain that feminine outlook) but I used it rather frequently with my girl friends. But I know my guy friends use vulgarities more than girls do and they do so openly.

Now that I am much, much, much more mature, the way I interact is totally different: no more harsh words and very polite use of the language (be it in English or in Malay) towards both male and female friends and family members.

Now that I’m much more mature, I believe I’m able to assess conversations better. After analysing a few conversations I’ve heard between the different genders, these are what I’ve gathered:

Male-male:

- Greater frequency in the use of harsh words, vulgarities at times

- More fluent, very loud

- Very rational and objective-driven conversations

- More open about their private lives

- Traditionally gossip-mongers are women; now a fair share of men doing so too

Female-female:

- More listener’s response used than males

- Greater frequency of interruption

- Often indirect i.e. beats around the bush before arriving to the objective of the statement

- May include use of harsh words in some instances, but often very polite

- Women talks very fast (sometimes appear as though they’re mumbling)

- Women stereotyped as the naggy one

Mixed gender interaction:

- Male sounds more ‘commanding’ and demanding- typical in Muslim families because men are inherently the leaders of the family

- Women more submissive and more feminine than when talking to another female – often giving way to men when talking

- More beginning to ‘indulge’ in the use of harsh and vulgar words in this interaction group – both men and women

But with everything becoming more and more egalitarian, it is not surprising if there are no specific observable traits that can be used to characterise each type of interactions. Ah well, so much for having women’s rights. Aye! =)

Gender interaction is not a phenomenon. It does not occur only during that brief moment in time when one interacts with someone from the same or different gender. It is actually these encounters that ultimately shape one’s entire personality and behaviour. And most of the time, how we interact is largely influenced by the people around us and

Throughout the years, I’ve finally realised how interaction between the different genders change as one ages.

Post Six: What Do You Mean I'm Not Polite?

The first time I saw the terms 'Agreement Maxim' and 'Modesty Maxim' in the articles I was assigned to read for my literature review, I thought it was just an 'Agreement vs Modesty' debate. So I was rather surprised that there's not just 2, not 3 ... But 6 maxims in total introduced by Geoffrey Leech. Often, when it comes to reviews on the topic of 'compliments and compliment responses', the two most prevalent maxims are (once again) Agreement and Modesty maxims.

So I tried to find out more about this maxim. Unlike Hofstede, these two prominent figures do not have their own official website (or maybe not for now ...). Hence, I would like to share some light on my findings with my fellow coursemates. Leech's Politeness Maxims were actually built upon the maxims brought about by philosopher Paul Grice. His Gricean Maxims are also known as 'Conversational Maxims'.

So how are they both different? Well, let's take a look at the table I've prepared below (I've omitted the info on Leech's maxims that we've already done in class):

Both maxims attempt to lay down the socially-acceptable ways of interacting and executing conversations with the people around us i.e. they can be the underlying criteria for the etiquettes we observe everywhere we go. And in both cases too, flouting the maxims may produce a negative pragmatic effect such as sarcasm and irony.

As discussed, of course both sets of maxims don’t hold true for all cultures. Grice’s oppose what is being practised by the Malagasy of Madagascar and Leech’s might not be entirely true for countries like Cuba.

Reflecting on what I’ve learnt from the last class and the additional research that I’ve done, I begin to reflect on what I’ve been doing all these while in an attempt to be polite:

- Maximise benefits in others i.e. make them pleased/happy with my words and actions

- Maximise cost to self i.e. going the distance to make people feel pleased e.g. say thank you, smile

- Malays love to praise one another hence it is something which I often do to my friends. Usually in younger ones like myself, the things that we praise on are often appearance and possessions. Of course, the typical skill which most of us praise on nowadays are on cooking.

- It is also typically the Malay culture to be humble and hence, minimise self-praise i.e. I rarely praise myself

- Agreement is not always observed in my conversations. It’s just alot of listener’s response and don’t often always confer agreement

- Sympathy is one thing which Malays are well-known for. We sympathise other people too much at times. So much so, our sympathy is sometimes seen as questionable

As for conversational skills, I realise that I still don’t observe the following maxims:

- Maxim of manner: I often talk a little bit too much (adhering too much to the Quantity maxim i.e. to make my speech most informative) so much so it tends to digress

- Maxim of relation: because I like to communicate as informatively as possible, I tend to overlook this aspect

- Maxim of quality: I still realise that some of the things that I say tends to be ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ i.e. fine details that I can’t remember are usually filled in with details that are often inaccurate

Ah well, so much for talking and not observe any rules that govern these talks! =) Once again, a person who has never thought much about linguistics would have never thought that all the speech acts we execute, observe specific rules (which most of us are totally unaware). These rules that govern ‘polite’ speeches too come as no surprise. Something to 'chew on' ... =)

Post Five: Some Things to Note When Setting Up a Business in Norway

Once again, the session last week has left me not just surprised, but fascinated and yearning to find out more ... =)

After flipping through my notes and straining my eyes on what I've scribbled (almost illegibly) during class, I decided to find out more on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Googling his name will find you his official website (mind you, his last name is trademarked!) topping the search list. If in class, Dr Deng mentioned that Hofstede has not gotten his PhD, he is now an Emeritus Professor at Maastricht University.

The aim of the Hofstede Score basically functions to compare countries, societies or cultures in terms of their cultural behaviour. This includes:

PDI: Power Distance Index

IDV: Individualism

MAS: Masculinity

UAI: Uncertainty Avoidance Index

LTO: Long-Term Orientation

I didn't quite understand why there's a need to have such scoring systems but after perusing through the website, I discovered that the main aim of assessing different societies is to give insights to people who would like to do business in other countries, especially in another part of the world. Let's take for example, Singapore's score chart:

Assuming a Singaporean entrepreneur wants to do business in Norway. Let's now take a look at Norway's score chart:

After comparing these two charts, it's quite obvious that these two countries are total opposites! So what should this entrepreneur do?

As mentioned in class, PDI is generally very low in Scandinivian countries unlike in Singapore, where hierarchy at the workplace is very prominent. So the Singaporean must expect a lack of distance and 'respect' from his workers.

Next, Individualism in Norway is typical of Western societies. Just as much as Singapore seems to be teeming with individualistic yuppies, we are still widely practising collectivism. Hence, when in Norway, a Singaporean should know what is appropriate and what is not in setting up his/her company's policy.

Thirdly, Masculinity wise, it is rather surprising that Singapore is more masculine. Masculine in a sense, it is more assertive. Whereas Norway is expected to be more modest and caring. Hence the index somewhat measures the gender distrbution and in the execution of their roles. It is expected that Singapore to have a greater gap between men's values and women's values. This is probably because of our still-prevalent traditionalisticAsian culture, which practises gender-differentiation in almost every aspect of our lives. Norway, on the other hand, is more egalitarian i.e. roles men and women are not the typical male-breadwinner and female-homemaker template. Hence, when hiring workers or dealing his/her Norwegian counterparts, it is wise that the entrepreneur knows more about this gender differentiation so as not to be caught by surprise.

Based on the Uncertainty Avoidance Index, we can sense that Norwegians are not so much of risk-takers like Singaporeans. They are less receptive to ambiguities in life. Singaporeans, on the other hand, scores high on the Uncertainty Acceptance index. It is said that countries like Singapore are more receptive of novel ideas, and not just stick to the norm. This is possibly due to the nature of our multi-cultural society. As a result, they are not expected to show emotions. (I guess this is why people are becoming more an dmore desensitised to one another's feelings)

Lastly, the index that fascinates me most is LTO. Apparently, LTO is typically analysed in countries which practices Confucian teachings. This includes Singapore. This is so because the questionnaire was designed by Chinese scholars. Long-term values include thrift and perseverance whereas short-term values inclide respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations. However, this is not restricted to Asian countries only. It is also applicable to European countries. So, do not be surprised if Norwegians are not thrifty and not seen as hardworking.

After laying out the comparisons between these two countries, are you still conviced that learning just the language alone will suffice? My advice: think again. =)

And to see if you've been paying attention, can you find Singapore and Norway in the plot below?