Binyamin Weinreich

Comp II

In her essay Gender in the Classroom, Deborah Tannen begins by establishing just which popular conceptions she has come to illuminate. Tannen writes with the authority of an eminent sociolinguist, and so her observations on the subject carry the weight of presumed objectivity. It is evident from reading the essay that it is written by someone with an academic background. The piece contains no pontifications, or emphatic exhortations to action. It cleanly and efficiently describes the phenomenon that in mixed-gender classroom settings, boys tend to speak up more often than girls. Tannen compelling attributes this to an almost universally observed difference in how men and women communicate, with men using antagonistic, challenging language that thrives in an environment of adversity, whereas women use more trusting, supportive language, that shrinks when pressed. Tannen then makes the step that truly distinguishes her from just another published blowhard: she tests her observations. This instantly gives her more credibility than a writer who only had unproven theories to rely on. She describes how she altered her teaching practices by breaking her class up into a series of small discussion groups, and how this allowed certain students, generally female, to come out of their shells and speak up more. The net result of Tannens piece is to cause the reader to analyze his or her assumptions about classroom conversational dynamics, and to offer an edifying new perspective that offers a solution to prevalent problem. Leon Podles, on the other hand, goes straight for the gut in his essay Being a Man. (And how like a man, too!) He instantly appeals to a romantic notion of manliness that he can reasonably assume to be universal in Western culture, given its history. Podles also writes with the assumption that true manliness must be carefully cultivated and cannot flower in a mixedsex environment, an assumption that remains unchecked throughout his piece. In Podles essay, men are incorrigibly violent, competitive creatures who thrive on positions of authority, and society is posed with a choice between training them to harness this tendency for selfexpenditure for the good of the community, or allowing them to run amok and leave chaos in their wake. His writing appeals to the readers confusion in a changing world, and his instinctive fear for the future, as well as his longing for a past where everything was simpler before social rot set in.

Tannen and Podles are discussing the same core trait: the masculine tendency toward aggression and dominance. But their ways of discussing it are almost antithetical. Tannen takes a reasoned, academic approach supported with observations and experimental data. Podles appeals to his readers embedded biases and resorts to a desperate jeremiad. Tannens essay also gives a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, dealing with the issue of co-ed schooling as it effects both girls and boys, and offering an easil implementable solution to the problem. Podles, on the other hand, calls for a radical reform of the American education system, and of American culture itself. After all, the feminization of education that Podles is mourning would seem to be a direct result of second-wave feminism causing society to put an increased focus on girls achievements so as to help them catch up to males, a form of gender-based affirmative action, so to speak. Its a big step to go from breaking classes up into small discussion groups organized by gender to mandating that all boys go to all-male schools that resemble military academies. It is particularly interesting to note that it is the essay written by a woman that takes the smallerscale approach to the problem and is written in a calmer, more reasonable tone, whereas the essay written by a man is bombastic and exaggerated in its claims and propositions. Perhaps the truth of the matter is borne out unwittingly in its discussion.