Rubin 1

Sarah Rubin

Professor Dziwirek

Honors 211

15 March 2016

The Way Women Speak: Subversive Ways in Which Women Encode Emotions

There are many gendered stereotypes in United States culture, but one might say

that the most pervasive of these is the old adage, “men are from Mars and women are from

Venus.” In essence, our culture subscribes to a strict gender binary that positions men and

women at opposite ends of every possible characteristic and mannerism. Consequently, it

should come as no surprise that this binaristic ideology extends to the concepts of emotion

and emotional expression. In this paper, I will explore how (and why) female-identified*

individuals encode emotional subtext in their speech, as compared to male-identified

individuals.

* For the sake of concision, I will refer to “men” and “women,” as well as “male” and

“female” in this paper. In addition, I will (on occasion) use “masculine” and “feminine”

interchangeably with “male” and “female.” In doing so, please note that what I am referring

to are male- and female-identified individuals, and the societal constructions of male and

female, respectively. Furthermore, I do not mean to imply that these are exhaustive or

comprehensive explications of male/female speech; rather, I am referring to common

speech patterns that have been shown to correlate with gender, and working off of those

assumptions.
 Rubin 2

Generally speaking, our culture assumes that women are both inherently more

emotional and less in control of their emotions. On the flip side, men are assumed to be less

emotional (with one main exception, which I will discuss later) and more in control of the

emotions they do experience. Our culture has traditionally held up the male and masculine

as the “norm” and categorized the female and feminine as a deviant “other” (de Beauvoir,

4). This puts women in a situation in which they are forced to either behave in a “feminine”

manner and thus confirm the stereotypes about them, or try and conform to the

“masculine” ideal in order to be taken more seriously. The latter route is most often

adopted by professional women and those seeking to advance in a male-dominated field,

where they are pressured to assimilate to a masculine environment (Coates, 203). Of

course, many such women are then also accused of being embarrassed or ashamed of their

gender. It is clear that women are constantly forced to walk a thin line, expected to

simultaneously embrace and reject their gender’s stereotypes. A woman is compelled to be

both feminine, but not too feminine, and masculine, but not too masculine. One recourse to

the exhausting push-and-pull of these contradictory societal expectations is that many

women have adopted specific methods by which they navigate between the masculine and

feminine and express emotions through their speech.

In order to provide a frame of reference for the female speech patterns I am going to

explore, I will first discuss some common patterns in male speech.† First, men typically

make greater use of quantitative references, e.g. numbers and times, location words, and

† Source for speech pattern information:

http://changingminds.org/explanations/gender/gender_language.htm
 Rubin 3

judgmental adjectives (saying “that was a poor choice” or “that was a good choice”). Men

also are more likely to use commands and self-references, such as saying “I disagree with

that” or “I agree with that.” Not only do men tend to speak in brief sentences, but they also

use fewer words to talk about other people. Instead, they spend more words talking about

objects in their surroundings, using what is called “task-oriented talk.” This style of speech

means that men have fewer instances in which they verbally communicate emotion. As a

result, they tend to rely more on unspoken communication, specifically body language.

Certain stances – such as crossed arms, back straight, legs straight in a V-shape, and eyes

looking down the nose – can be called “power stances” and communicate confidence and

authority. Other stances – such as hunched back, hands in pockets, eyes aimed at floor, and

legs bent or crossed – typically indicate passivity, submission, and deference. Clearly, body

language takes on an even higher level of importance when it has to fill the void left by

reduced verbal communication.

When women speak, they often use more intensive adverbs, such as “very” and

“really,” as well as qualifying clauses (e.g. “it could be,” “it might be”). Consequently, women

generally use longer sentences than men (most likely in order to accommodate the above-

mentioned patterns). They are more likely to use negation (i.e., saying, “wasn’t it Grace who

said that?” rather than “was it Grace who said that?”). Similarly, women may use what are

called “simultaneous opposites,” in which they acknowledge both viewpoints and hedge

their bets, thus making their statement come across as more palatable for a wider

audience. These characteristics tie into a general air of uncertainty and questioning that

often permeates female speech. In these ways, the speaker may come across as seeking

approval or acceptance from the listener. These specific characteristics are all ways in
 Rubin 4

which women, consciously or unconsciously, corroborate the gendered stereotypes in our

culture. Women also include more direct emotional references, as well as using more

words to speak about other people. The latter leads to, again, more opportunities to

communicate emotion – you are more likely to talk about emotions when referring to your

sister than you are when referring to an armchair.

One pervasive myth regarding men, women, and their respective speech patterns is

the myth that women talk more than men. In 2006, Louann Brizendine stated in The Female

Brain that women speak nearly three times as many words per day as men (Gender

Jabber). However, a study published in Science about a year later refuted this claim, stating

instead that men and women use a similar number of words each day. Despite these

results, the myth has held its grip. The likely reason is that “women tend to jaw more about

other people, whereas men are apt to hold forth on more concrete objects,” causing women

to be perceived as talking more than men (Gender Jabber). Another factor to consider is the

curious phenomenon shown by numerous social psychology studies, in which group

conversations that feature women talking in equal amounts to men in a group setting are

perceived by the male group members women as having been female-dominated

conversations. Even if a woman talks less than the men around her in a given situation,

those men will likely view her as having been excessively chatty.

It should come as no surprise, then, that some women have turned to emulating

male speech patterns in order to be taken more seriously. As I mentioned earlier, this is

especially common among female professionals and those in traditionally male-dominated

fields, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (also known as STEM

fields). Having been dominated by males for many years, STEM fields predictably value
 Rubin 5

objectivity, rationality, and quantitative data – all values that are echoed in the standards

for typical male speech patterns, and all values that prize themselves on the exclusion of

emotionality (a typically feminine value). From this viewpoint, it makes sense how

femininity and STEM have been seen as mutually exclusive for so long. It is true that some

overtly feminine women have made successful careers in STEM; however, they are the

exception. Generally, female speech patterns only take precedence when male speech

patterns are not present in a conversation (either being used by males themselves or by

other women); otherwise, male speech patterns tend to dominate any given conversation

taking place. This effect is magnified when viewed in a more holistic sense – when viewed

through a larger lens, “masculine fields” privilege traditionally masculine mannerisms,

dress styles, and personality traits, along with masculine speech patterns. If a woman

follows male speech patterns, she (in rare cases) may be treated like one. Often, however,

she will simply be criticized by men for seeming too “manly,” and by other women for

“forsaking her gender” or being “self-hating.‡” In such cases, a woman is stuck in a catch-22

between genders; this conundrum, of course, reinforces the problematic nature of the

gender binary.

Indeed, the binaristic system of gender in our society hurts everyone. In opposition

to the false presupposition of female over-emotionality, there is a taboo surrounding

emotional talk for men. One classic example is illustrated in the following lines of

conversation:

‡ There has been extensive writing done on this topic in regards to racial dynamics in the

United States, as well.

 Rubin 6

I overheard two women chatting in the market. One asked the other, "Does your

husband talk to you?" Her companion answered, "Of course he talks, he has to ask

me what's for dinner doesn't he?"

(Psychology Today)

If there were a flip side to the stereotype of the excessively emotional woman, it would be

the emotionally constipated man. This figure doesn’t openly display emotion more than

once or twice in his life – he might shed a tear at his daughter’s wedding, but he is expected

to remain stoic and stone-faced throughout life’s trials and tribulations. However, as I

hinted at earlier in this paper, there is one key exception to this trope: anger. Men are

virtually required to demonstrate anger, starting in their childhood and continuing

throughtout the rest of their life. Fights (physical and verbal) are seen as a rite of passage

into manhood in our society, and anger is seen as an inherently masculine trait (and visa

versa). This culture of anger is incredibly toxic, encouraging the raising of fists and

weapons in place of lowered hands and calm words in the face of conflict. People often view

women as an antidote to these situations, assuming they will default to words and

peacekeeping rather than the violence of their male counterparts. While this may be a

positive stereotype for woman, that does not make it any less of a stereotype. Furthermore,

it is presumptuous and unfair to assume that women will voluntarily bear the emotional

labor of conflict resolution. Historically, women have almost always been held responsible

for emotional labor – labor that is, as a rule, uncompensated monetarily or even

superficially (e.g. praise and recognition). In a heterosexual marriage, it is the wife who is

seen as the default party responsible for managing holiday cards, birthday parties,

correspondence with relatives from both sides of the family, children’s social activities, and
 Rubin 7

more. If a woman is unemployed and her husband is, it is assumed that she will voluntarily

and sympathetically listen to his grievances at the end of each workday without any

expectation of emotional reimbursement. When the positions are reversed (an unemployed

man and an employed wife), that expectation no longer remains. Like all sexist practices,

this hurts both parties involved – a man may want to ask his wife about her emotions but

fear being seen as “soft,” and a woman may be sick and tired of listening to her husband

vent every evening but fear being seen as a bad wife for telling him so.

After all this discussion of how women are typically assumed to be more emotional

and emotionally expressive than men, it might not be clear how women encoding emotion

into their speech could be seen as “subversive.” After all, aren’t they just doing what is

expected of them? As the title of this paper suggests, I would argue to the contrary. When a

marginalized group is affected by a hurtful stereotype, the natural progression of

assumptions is to presume that they will do everything in their power to disprove the

stereotype. A gay man might intentionally dress in a very masculine manner, a pregnant

teenager might double down on her schoolwork, and a woman in a corporate (or any

other) setting might attempt to eschew all displays of emotion. There is nothing wrong

with this – members of an oppressor/majority group have no place criticizing the

strategies of resistance undertaken by members of a marginalized group. However, there is

also nothing wrong with choosing to embrace those qualities that have been the cause of

such derision and discrimination. In embracing their emotions and being unafraid to

communicate them in speech, women are helping to destabilize the patriarchy – one

sentence at a time.
 Rubin 8

Works Cited

Beauvoir, Simone De. The Second Sex. New York: Knopf, 1953. Print.

Coates, Jennifer. Women, Men, and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Sex Differences in

Language. London: Longman, 1986. Print.

"Gender Jabber: Do Women Talk More than Men?" Scientific American. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.

"Gender Language Differences." Gender Language Differences. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.

Hall, Kira, and Mary Bucholtz. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed

Self. New York: Routledge, 1995. Print.

"Men, Women, Emotions and Communication." Psychology Today. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.