Cameron -- Performing Gender Identity

Higher Scores

  • Higher scores on modal tests reflect the fact that data were taken from domains commonly sought after.

Performing Gender Identity

  • Article about language and masculinity.
  • The core is the argument rather than descriptive elements, what brings argument to life is the vividness of data it builds around.
  • The argument began to come together while thinking about a conversational transcript from a student named Danny.
  • Without Danny's contribution, there would have been no article.
  • Danny belonged to a community of practice with different sexual politics.

Informants' Sexual Politics

  • Danny and his friends are now in their late thirties, established in professional careers, perhaps married, and possibly fathers of young children.
  • The ways of talking and the attitudes they express toward women and gay men may no longer be part of their active discourse repertoire.
  • Studies of male speakers are skewed to adolescents due to theoretical reasons (adolescents negotiating gender/sexual identities) and practical considerations (availability to researchers).
  • Men who benefit most from male privilege and power are under-represented in research studies.
  • Feminist linguistic scholarship on masculinity has continued to flourish.
  • The question of mature adult masculinity, especially that of high-status men, is an important one for future research to pursue.

Danny's Investigation

  • In 1990, Danny, a 21-year-old student, tape-recorded a casual conversation among five men to investigate whether the informal talk of male friends would bear out generalizations about "men's talk".
  • Men's talk is often viewed as competitive, hierarchically organized, centers on impersonal topics, exchanges information, and foregrounds speech genres such as joking, trading insults, and sports statistics.
  • Danny's paper was titled 'Wine, women, and sports'.
  • Stereotypical features were: competitive, hierarchically organized, centered around impersonal topic, joking, trading insults, and sports statistics.

Analysis and Expectations

  • Danny's analysis was not inaccurate or unwarranted, but his description of the data was partial (shaped by expectations).
  • Analysis is never done without preconceptions.
  • It is difficult to subdue certain expectations when the object of observation and analysis has to do with gender.

Gendered behavior

  • Scenarios of typical masculine/feminine behavior are presented in popular books, which are apprehended as immediately recognizable because of witnessed real life scenarios, or cultural scripts that make them meaningful and typical.
  • For example, Deborah Tannen remarks on men's reluctance to ask for directions while driving, and attributes it to men's greater concern for status (asking for help suggests helplessness).
  • However, if people are told it is women rather than men who are more reluctant to ask for directions, they will have no difficulty coming up with an explanation like female desire to avoid imposing on others.

Discourse on gender difference

  • The behavior of men and women is invariably read through a more general discourse on gender difference itself.
  • That discourse is subsequently invoked to explain the pattern of gender differentiation in people’s behavior.
  • Conversationalists construct stories about themselves and others, with a view to performing certain kinds of gender identity.

Identity and Performativity

  • In 1990, Judith Butler published "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity", which offered a postmodernist reconceptualization of gender.
  • Butler used the concept of performativity from speech-act theory.
  • Gender is performative.
  • Feminine and masculine are not what we are, nor traits we have, but effects we produce by particular things that we do.
  • Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a rigid regulatory frame which congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural kind of being.
  • This extends the traditional feminist account whereby gender is socially constructed rather than natural, famously expressed in Simone de Beauvoir’s dictum that one is not born, but rather becomes a woman.
  • Becoming a woman (or a man) is not something you accomplish once and for all at an early stage of life.
  • Gender must constantly be reaffirmed and publicly displayed by repeatedly performing particular acts in accordance with the cultural norms which define masculinity and femininity.

'Performative' Model

  • This sheds light on the phenomenon of gendered speech.
  • Speech, too, is a repeated stylization of the body.
  • Masculine and feminine styles of talking are the congealed result of repeated acts by social actors who are striving to constitute themselves as proper men and women.
  • Sociolinguistics traditionally assumes that people talk the way they do because of who they already are.
  • The postmodernist approach suggests that people are who they are because of the way they talk, shifting the focus from cataloging differences to how people use linguistic resources to produce gender differentiation.
  • It also obliges us to attend to the rigid regulatory frame within which people must make their choices - the norms that define what kinds of language are possible, intelligible and appropriate resources for performing masculinity or femininity.
  • It acknowledges the instability and variability of gender identities and behavior.
  • Judith Butler insists that gender is regulated and policed by rigid social norms, but she does not reduce people to automata.
  • People are conscious agents who may engage in acts of transgression, subversion and resistance at some social cost.
  • Men and women may use their awareness of the gendered meanings that attach to particular ways of speaking and acting to produce a variety of effects.
  • Analysts of data on men's and women’s speech say that the differences are not as clear-cut and invariant as oft-cited dichotomies like competitive/cooperative and report talk/rapport talk.
  • People perform gender differently in different contexts, and sometimes behave in ways typically associated with the other gender.

The conversation: wine, women, sports - and other men

  • The five men in the conversation (Al, Bryan, Carl, Danny, and Ed) were a demographically homogenous group: white, middle-class American suburbanites aged 21, attending the same university and belonging to the same social network on campus.
  • The conversation occurred while watching sports at home on television.
  • A basketball game was on screen, but sports talk was not the only kind of talk being done.
  • The men also recounted the events of their day, discussed mundane details of domestic arrangements, debated the merits of a certain kind of wine, and told longer narratives.

Danny's Tiltle

  • Danny's title Wine, women and sports is accurate insofar as all these subjects are discussed at some length, but it omits the single most prominent theme: gossip.
  • Gossip is discussion of several persons not present but known to the participants, with a strong focus on critically examining these individuals’ appearance, dress, social behavior and sexual mores.
  • The individuals under discussion are all men identified as gay.

Gays Topic

  • The topic of gays is raised by Ed:
    ED:MugsyBogues(.)mynameisLloydGompersIamahomosexual(.)youknowwhatthe(.)IsawthenewRemnantIshouldhavegrabbedyouknowthetitle?Liketheheadthing?ED: Mugsy Bogues (.) my name is Lloyd Gompers I am a homosexual (.) you know what the (.) I saw the new Remnant I should have grabbed you know the title? Like the head thing?,
  • Mugsy Bogues (a basketball player) is an acknowledgement of the previous turn.
  • Ed saw the new Remnant, a deliberately provocative right-wing campus newspaper whose main story was an attack on the Gay Ball, a dance sponsored by the college’s Gay Society.

Homosexuality

  • The next few turns are devoted to establishing a shared view of the Gay Ball and of homosexuality generally.
  • Three of the men, Al, Bryan and Ed, are actively involved:
    AL:= gays$\$
    ED;= gays w[hy? that's what it should read gays why?$\$
    BRYAN:=[Iknow]$$<br/>BRYAN:=[I know]\$\$<br />[gays]</li><li>Aviewofgaysasalien(heterosexualandpuzzledbyhomosexuality)andcomicalisshared.</li><li>Dannycomments,it’shilarious,andEdcapsthesequence:<br/></li> <li>A view of gays as alien (heterosexual and puzzled by homosexuality) and comical is shared.</li> <li>Danny comments, it’s hilarious, and Ed caps the sequence:<br />ED: the question is who wears the boutonniere and who wears the corsage, flip for it? or do they both just wear flowers coz they're fruits</li><li>Dannyintroducesthethemeofgossipaboutindividualmenwhoaresaidtobegay.</li></ul><h3id="boys">Boys</h3><ul><li>Referringtotheonlyothermaninhislanguageandgenderclass,Dannybegins:<br/></li> <li>Danny introduces the theme of gossip about individual men who are said to be gay.</li> </ul> <h3 id="boys">Boys</h3> <ul> <li>Referring to the only other man in his language and gender class, Danny begins:<br />DANNY: My boy Ronnie was uh speaking up on the male perspective today (.) way too much</li><li>Thesectionfollowingthiscontributionisstructuredaroundaseriesofreferencestoothergayindividualsknowntotheparticipantsasclassmates.</li><li>BryanmentionsthemosteffeminateguyI’veevermetandthatreallygayguyinourAgeofRevolutionclass.</li><li>Edremarksyouhaveneverseenmorehomosthanwehaveinourclass.Homos,dykes,homos,dykes,everybodyisahomooradyke.</li><li>Hethenfocusesonafat,queer,goofyguywho’sasgayasnight[sic],andonablondhair,snidelittlequeerweirdshit,whoisfurtherdescribedasabuttpirate.</li><li>Thecontentofthesediscussionswillbearcloserexamination.</li></ul><h3id="theantithesisofman">′Theantithesisofman′</h3><ul><li>Oneofthemostpuzzlingthingsaboutthewholegayssequencewasthatthegroup’scriteriaforcategorizingpeopleasgayappearedtohavelittletodowiththosepeople’sknownorsuspectedsexualpreferencesorpractices.</li><li>Thetermsbuttpirateandbuttcutterwereusedseldom.</li><li>Itwasunclearwhethertheindividualsreferredtowerehomosexual.</li></ul><h3id="devianceindication">DevianceIndication</h3><ul><li>Thedevianceindicatedforthisgroupbythetermgayisnotsexualdevianceasgenderdeviance.</li><li>Beinggaymeansfailingtomeasureuptothegroup’sstandardsofmasculinityorfemininity.</li><li>Unlikesame−versusother−sexpreference,conformitytogendernormscanbeamatterofdegree.</li><li>Itmakessensetocallsomeonereallygay:unlikesame−versusother−sexpreference,conformitytogendernormscanbeamatterofdegree.</li><li>Hittingonanugly−assbitchcanbeclassedashomosexualbehaviorpropermasculinityrequiresthattheobjectofpublicsexualinterestbenotjustfemalebutminimallyattractive.</li><li>Appliedbythegrouptomen,gayrefersinparticulartoinsufficientlymasculineappearance,clothingandspeech.</li><li>ToillustratethisIwillreproducealongersequenceofconversationaboutthereallygayguyinourAgeofRevolutionclass,whichendswithEddeclaring:he’stheantithesisofman.<br/></li> <li>The section following this contribution is structured around a series of references to other gay individuals known to the participants as classmates.</li> <li>Bryan mentions the most effeminate guy I’ve ever met and that really gay guy in our Age of Revolution class.</li> <li>Ed remarks you have never seen more homos than we have in our class. Homos, dykes, homos, dykes, everybody is a homo or a dyke.</li> <li>He then focuses on a fat, queer, goofy guy who’s as gay as night [sic], and on a blond hair, snide little queer weird shit, who is further described as a butt pirate.</li> <li>The content of these discussions will bear closer examination.</li> </ul> <h3 id="theantithesisofman">'The antithesis of man'</h3> <ul> <li>One of the most puzzling things about the whole gays sequence was that the group’s criteria for categorizing people as gay appeared to have little to do with those people’s known or suspected sexual preferences or practices.</li> <li>The terms butt pirate and butt cutter were used seldom.</li> <li>It was unclear whether the individuals referred to were homosexual.</li> </ul> <h3 id="devianceindication">Deviance Indication</h3> <ul> <li>The deviance indicated for this group by the term gay is not sexual deviance as gender deviance.</li> <li>Being gay means failing to measure up to the group’s standards of masculinity or femininity.</li> <li>Unlike same-versus other-sex preference, conformity to gender norms can be a matter of degree.</li> <li>It makes sense to call someone really gay: unlike same-versus other-sex preference, conformity to gender norms can be a matter of degree.</li> <li>Hitting on an ugly-ass bitch can be classed as homosexual behavior proper masculinity requires that the object of public sexual interest be not just female but minimally attractive.</li> <li>Applied by the group to men, gay refers in particular to insufficiently masculine appearance, clothing and speech.</li> <li>To illustrate this I will reproduce a longer sequence of conversation about the really gay guy in our Age of Revolution class, which ends with Ed declaring: he’s the antithesis of man.<br />BRYAN: uh you know that really gay guy in our Age of Revolution class who sits in front of us? he wore shorts again by the way it's like 42 degrees out he wore shorts again [laughter]$<br/>\$<br />ED:= [that guy]<br/><br />BRYAN: it's like a speedo, he wears a speedo to class (.) he's got incredibly skinny legs you know =$<br/>\$<br />ED:= [it's worse] like those shorts women$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN:= [you know$<br/>\$<br />ED:= volleyball players wear? it's like those (.) it's l[ike$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN: what's even more ridicu[lous? When you wear those shorts and$<br/>\$<br />ED:=[French cut spandex]$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN: like a parka on (text omitted) he's either got some condition that he's got to like have his legs exposed at all times or else he's got really good legs =$<br/>\$<br />ED:=[he really$<br/>\$<br />CARL:=he's probably he'[s$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN:=he's like he's like at home combing his leg hairs$<br/>\$<br />CARL:likes his legs$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN: he doesn't have any leg hair though =$<br/>\$<br />ED:=[yes and oh$<br/>\$<br />CARL:=he really likes his legs =$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN: very long very white and very skinny those ridiculous Reeboks$<br/>\$<br /> ED: those ridiculous Reeboks$<br/>\$<br />BRYAN: that are always (indeciph) and goofy white socks always$<br/>\$<br />ED:=
    striped$<br/>\$<br />ED: = that's [right$<br/>\$<br />AL:=[tube socks$<br/>\$<br />ED: he's the antithesis of man</li></ul><h3id="characteristics">Characteristics</h3><ul><li><p>Thegroupengagesinconversationthatistheantithesisofmen′stalklikethewine,women,andsportsstereotype.</p></li><li><p>Itisclosertothestereotypeofwomen′stalk.</p></li><li><p>Resemblesconventionalnotionofwomen′stalkinpurposeandsubjectmatter.</p></li><li><p>Itistalkaboutpeople,notthings,reporttalk,notrapporttalk(primarypointisexchanginginfo).</p></li><li><p>Itisgossip,anditservesaffirmingsolidarityofanin−groupbyconstructingabsentothersasanout−groupwhosebehaviorisscrutinizedandfoundwanting.</p></li><li><p>Thespecificsubjectsthetalkdwellsonareconventionallyfeminineones:clothingandbodilyappearance.</p></li><li><p>Themenarecaughtupinacontradiction:theircriticismofthegayscentersontheirunmanlyinterestindisplayingtheirbodiesandtheinappropriategarmentstheychoose.Theimplicationisthatrealmenjustpullontheirjeans.</p></li><li><p>Inordertopursuethis,onemustshowawarenessofunmanlystyle/materials.</p></li><li><p>Theyparadoxicallytalkaboutmen′sbodiestodemonstratetheirownlackofsexualinterestinthem.</p></li><li><p>Analysesofmen’sandwomen’sspeechstyleareorganizedaroundaseriesofglobaloppositions(menarecompetitive,womenarecooperative).</p></li><li><p>Mentalktogainstatus,womentoforgeintimacy,menreporttalk,womenrapporttalk.</p></li></ul><h3id="toolsfordescribingdata">ToolsforDescribingData</h3><ul><li><p>Analystsworkingwiththeseoppositionsidentifyformalororganizationalfeaturesoftalkasmarkersofcompetition.</p></li><li><p>I,too,willusetheconventionaloppositionsastoolsfordescribingdata,butIwillbetryingtobuildupanargumentthattheiruseisproblematic.</p></li><li><p>Theproblemisnotmerelythatthemeninmydatafailtofittheirgenderstereotypeperfectly.</p></li><li><p>Itisthestereotypeunderpinsanalyticjudgementsthatacertainformiscooperativeratherthancompetitive,orthatpeopleareseekingstatusratherthanconnectionintheirtalk.</p></li><li><p>IobservedaboutDeborahTannen’svignettesthatinstancesofbehaviorwillsupporteitherinterpretation,orboth;weusethespeaker’sgenderandourbeliefsaboutwhatmakessenseformembersofthatgendertorulesomeinterpretationsinandothersout.</p></li></ul><h3id="cooperation">Cooperation</h3><ul><li>JenniferCoateshasremarkedonthecooperativenatureofinformaltalkamongfemalefriends,drawingattentiontolinguisticfeaturesthatareprominentindataonall−femalegroups.</li><li>Hedgingandepistemicmodalsaresignsofattentiontoothers′face,minimizingconflictandsecuringagreement.</li><li>Latchingofturns,simultaneousspeech,andtherepetitionorrecyclingoflexicalitemsandphrasesacrossturnsaresignalsthataconversationisajointproduction:thatparticipantsarebuildingononeanother′scontributionssothatideasarefelttobegrouppropertyratherthanasinglespeaker.</li></ul><h3id="criteria">Criteria</h3><ul><li>Onthesecriteria,thisconversationmustbejudgedashighlycooperative.</li><li>Intheextract,alargenumberofturns(aroundhalf)beginwithyouknowand/orcontainthemarkerlike(youknowlikethoseshortswomenvolleyballplayerswear?).</li><li>Thefunctionsoftheseitems(especiallylike)inyoungerAmericans’Englisharecomplexandmultiple,andmayincludethecooperative,mitigating/face−protectingfunctionsassociatedwithhedging.</li><li>Evenwheretheyarenotclearlyhedges,inthisinteractionthefunctioninwaysthatrelatetothebuildingofgroupinvolvementandconsensus.</li><li>Theyoftenseemtomarkinformationasgivenwithinthegroup’sdiscourse.</li><li>Theyhavehearer−orientedaffectivefunctionsandfunctionasamarkerofhighinvolvement.</li><li>Itappearsmostfrequentlyatmomentswhentheinteractantsarenoticeablyexcited:</li></ul><p></li> </ul> <h3 id="characteristics">Characteristics</h3> <ul> <li><p>The group engages in conversation that is the antithesis of men's talk like the wine, women, and sports stereotype.</p></li> <li><p>It is closer to the stereotype of women's talk.</p></li> <li><p>Resembles conventional notion of women's talk in purpose and subject matter.</p></li> <li><p>It is talk about people, not things, report talk, not rapport talk (primary point is exchanging info).</p></li> <li><p>It is gossip, and it serves affirming solidarity of an in-group by constructing absent others as an out-group whose behavior is scrutinized and found wanting.</p></li> <li><p>The specific subjects the talk dwells on are conventionally feminine ones: clothing and bodily appearance.</p></li> <li><p>The men are caught up in a contradiction: their criticism of the gays centers on their unmanly interest in displaying their bodies and the inappropriate garments they choose. The implication is that real men just pull on their jeans.</p></li> <li><p>In order to pursue this, one must show awareness of unmanly style/materials.</p></li> <li><p>They paradoxically talk about men's bodies to demonstrate their own lack of sexual interest in them.</p></li> <li><p>Analyses of men’s and women’s speech style are organized around a series of global oppositions (men are competitive, women are cooperative).</p></li> <li><p>Men talk to gain status, women to forge intimacy, men report talk, women rapport talk.</p></li> </ul> <h3 id="toolsfordescribingdata">Tools for Describing Data</h3> <ul> <li><p>Analysts working with these oppositions identify formal or organizational features of talk as markers of competition.</p></li> <li><p>I, too, will use the conventional oppositions as tools for describing data, but I will be trying to build up an argument that their use is problematic.</p></li> <li><p>The problem is not merely that the men in my data fail to fit their gender stereotype perfectly.</p></li> <li><p>It is the stereotype underpins analytic judgements that a certain form is cooperative rather than competitive, or that people are seeking status rather than connection in their talk.</p></li> <li><p>I observed about Deborah Tannen’s vignettes that instances of behavior will support either interpretation, or both; we use the speaker’s gender and our beliefs about what makes sense for members of that gender to rule some interpretations in and others out.</p></li> </ul> <h3 id="cooperation">Cooperation</h3> <ul> <li>Jennifer Coates has remarked on the cooperative nature of informal talk among female friends, drawing attention to linguistic features that are prominent in data on all-female groups.</li> <li>Hedging and epistemic modals are signs of attention to others' face, minimizing conflict and securing agreement.</li> <li>Latching of turns, simultaneous speech, and the repetition or recycling of lexical items and phrases across turns are signals that a conversation is a joint production: that participants are building on one another's contributions so that ideas are felt to be group property rather than a single speaker.</li> </ul> <h3 id="criteria">Criteria</h3> <ul> <li>On these criteria, this conversation must be judged as highly cooperative.</li> <li>In the extract, a large number of turns (around half) begin with you know and/or contain the marker like (you know like those shorts women volleyball players wear?).</li> <li>The functions of these items (especially like) in younger Americans’ English are complex and multiple, and may include the cooperative, mitigating/face-protecting functions associated with hedging.</li> <li>Even where they are not clearly hedges, in this interaction the function in ways that relate to the building of group involvement and consensus.</li> <li>They often seem to mark information as given within the group’s discourse.</li> <li>They have hearer-oriented affective functions and function as a marker of high involvement.</li> <li>It appears most frequently at moments when the interactants are noticeably excited:</li> </ul> <p>ED: he's I mean he's like a real artsy, fartsy fag he's like (indeciph) he's so gay he's got this like really high voice and wire rim glasses and he sits next to the ugliest-ass bitch in the history of the world<br/><br />BRYAN: and they're all hitting on her too, like four guys<br/><br />ED:=[hitting on her$<br/>\$<br />[I know it's like four homos hitting on her$$

    Extract Reproduced

    • In the extract reproduced earlier there is latching and simultaneous speech as compared to other forms of turn transition involving pauses, gaps, or interruptions.
    • Latching is turn transition without pause or overlap - is a mark of cooperation because in order to latch a turn so precisely onto the preceding turn, the speaker has to attend closely to others’ contributions.
    • The last part of the extract, discussing the really gay guy’s legs, is an excellent example of jointly produced discourse.
    • Speakers cooperate to build a detailed picture of the legs in a way that could not be attributed to a speaker.
    • Contains latching, repetition, and tokens of hearer support like yes and that’s right.
    • Worthy points of resemblance between these men’s talk and similar talk among women as reported by previous studies.

    Conversation

    • The conversation has the hallmark of women’s gossip.

    Competition

    • In quantitative terms, this conversation cannot be said to be egalitarian.
    • The extracts are representative as Ed and Bryan are the dominant speakers, and Carl and Al contribute fewer turns.
    • That there is is a hierarchy in this conversation, with competition, between the two speakers, Bryan and Ed.

    Ed's Topic

    • Ed introduces the topic of homosexuality, and initially attempts to keep ownership of it.
    • He cuts off Danny’s first remark on the subject with a reference to The Remnant: what was the article? cause you know they bashed them they were like.
    • Danny interrupts because Ed is repeating.
    • Aside from interrupting, Danny contradicts Ed, saying they didn't actually (.) cut into them big.
    • A little later Ed makes use of a competitive strategy: the joke or witty remark which caps other contributions.

    Danny And Brayn

    • This elicits no laughter, no matching joke and no take-up.
    • This is followed by a pause and a change of direction as Danny begins.
    • This elicits a matching contribution from Bryan. Ed tries.
    • Ed makes two unsuccessful attempts to regain the floor.
    • One, involving a prefatory remark I’m gonna be very honest, is ignored.
    • About the person, Bryan and Danny are discussing - what’s this guy’s last name? First Bryan asks him to repeat the question, then Danny replies I don’t know what the hell it is.
    • A similar pattern is reproduced above, where Ed tries to interrupt Bryan’s first turn that guy and it’s worse.
    • He gets the floor by using you know,like.
    • From that point, Ed orients more to the norms of joint production, overlaps to produce speech, does not interupt.

    Speakers

    • They may be engaged in collaboration.
    • They are basically engaged in a collaborative and solidary enterprise (reinforcing the bonds within the group by denigrating people outside it). All speakers participate, even if some are more active.
    • I have drawn attention to the presence of cooperative features, and have argued that extreme forms of hierarchical and competitive behavior are not rewarded by the group.
    • I could, indeed, have argued that by the end, Ed and Bryan are not so much competing because their contributions are not antagonistic to one another but tend to reinforce one another as engaging in the joint production of discourse.

    Dueling Analysis

    • Ed and Bryan are collaborative in putting down gay men as an occasion to be dueling verbal engaging by being verbally vulgar.
    • Ed did not modify his behavior as much as Lose his duel with Bryan.

    Deconstructing Oppositions

    • One response to the problem of competing is that the competitive versus cooperative can be problematic
    • It conversation can contain both elements
    • Talk myst involve coopertiveness.

    Competitive Approach

    • They may be in severe disagreement while punctiliously observant of one another’s speaking rights (as in a formal debate ).
    • They may be overtly supportive and at the same time hoping to score points for their supportiveness.
    • This last point is overlooked in women's talk.
    • Woman might solicit attention.
    • The egalitarian from groups are some degree coercive.

    Status

    • Woman might a gain a status by display the correct degree of concersn.

    Stereotypes

    • Arguably , miss the status seeking element in woman friend's talk and he connection making

    How to do Gender with Language

    • I am not involved in adopting a feminine style
    • To say conversation is feminine is it, it shows the importance of masculinity performance.
    • important in talk is performance that talk is doing, people as gened subjects

    Men and Women

    • Men and Woman are not on different planets.
    • they have a larger set of meanings to gender.
    • behavior is always going to vary

    Tradition

    • Performing correctly can have implications
    • Gender is relational.
    • find men under pressure what not do with forms of talk

    Male Gossiping

    • Many researchers have reported with it, or disguise
    • Men need differenciate.

    Conclusion

    • The conversation I analyzed it to make the point.
    • It hopes to make thought the idea of the meaning
    • It is possible for women to preform to subvert code can have argument with Danny because what did.