Letter to the Editor
Editor's note: The following letter is in response to "Interpreting Women" by Andrew Sickinger, which appeared in the March 25 issue of the WC.
Sarah Swanson
Issue date: 4/4/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
I will open by saying the one obvious truth contained in your editorial is that if many women have told you "it's me, not you," they were certainly lying. I'm well aware that writers like you primarily write to provoke feedback, and in this case I am more that willing to bestir my journalistic tendencies to berate you from across the country.
First, your underlying assumption that unadulterated English is somehow the natural language of males, and that females have been subversively raised speaking some pitfall-laden dialect, clearly reflects the depth at which our superficially equal patriarchy operates. In fact, any psychologist will tell you the exact opposite is true; infants utter their first words around the same age, but females develop a broader vocabulary more quickly, and communicate better with adults and each other. Of course this may be exacerbated by the environment, as males (young and old) are often encouraged to react physically rather than verbally to ANY provocation.
Second, I will grant you that while women sometimes send mixed messages between speech and body language, they may be doing so out of respect for your feelings (saying "Let's be friends" rather than "Take a hike you wanker" is let straightforward, but nicer). And if we are being honest, as you claim to be, you have to admit that men indulge in a lot of the same "Woman Speak."
Example: a man says "I'm thirsty" around his girlfriend, but doesn't move.
What's probably going through his mind is "get me a beer, b*tch!" Or were you perhaps implying that despite men's superior grasp of the English language, such vague phrases are not in their vocabulary? Well if they are absent, the grunts and whistles must fill the gap.
The next time you have to make a writing deadline, Mr. Sickinger, try formulating something resembling an opinion from a news byte at the front of a Newsweek or some reputable source rather than paraphrasing some masculine gripe-fest from the back pages of Maxim.
First, your underlying assumption that unadulterated English is somehow the natural language of males, and that females have been subversively raised speaking some pitfall-laden dialect, clearly reflects the depth at which our superficially equal patriarchy operates. In fact, any psychologist will tell you the exact opposite is true; infants utter their first words around the same age, but females develop a broader vocabulary more quickly, and communicate better with adults and each other. Of course this may be exacerbated by the environment, as males (young and old) are often encouraged to react physically rather than verbally to ANY provocation.
Second, I will grant you that while women sometimes send mixed messages between speech and body language, they may be doing so out of respect for your feelings (saying "Let's be friends" rather than "Take a hike you wanker" is let straightforward, but nicer). And if we are being honest, as you claim to be, you have to admit that men indulge in a lot of the same "Woman Speak."
Example: a man says "I'm thirsty" around his girlfriend, but doesn't move.
What's probably going through his mind is "get me a beer, b*tch!" Or were you perhaps implying that despite men's superior grasp of the English language, such vague phrases are not in their vocabulary? Well if they are absent, the grunts and whistles must fill the gap.
The next time you have to make a writing deadline, Mr. Sickinger, try formulating something resembling an opinion from a news byte at the front of a Newsweek or some reputable source rather than paraphrasing some masculine gripe-fest from the back pages of Maxim.
Be the first to comment on this story