I came to realize something that I may have taken for granted. The definition of violence and how that is perceived by men or women. I know it may be taboo to speak in gender specifics. It is necessary because your instruction should take it into consideration, for interpretations from perceptive filtering which result in specific responses, to violence according to gender.
In Dr. Suzette Elgin's book, Genderspeak: Men, Women, and The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense, in chapter three she discusses that often reference to "semantics" that is to me a misunderstood inference the gender perception differences toward violence. There is apparently a "reality gap" for the word violence for American English. Go directly to that chapter and page 42 and 43 for the entire section.
I would have gone on assuming that all of us understood violence until I read this part. I have a new respect for both the gender specifics on violence as well as verbal communications.
Bibliography:
Elgin, Suzzette Haden, Ph.D. "Genderspeak: Men, Women, and The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense." Wiley & Sons. New York. 1993
p.s. what the dictionary says: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something; Strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force; The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. It is now understood that even tho this is exact words describing violence the perceptive filters of people, emphasis here gender specific, may convey different semantic meaning.
I'm gonna have to get that book Charles - it sounds fascinating...
ReplyDeleteI've been reading Dr. Elgin's book and I disagree with her implication that men and women UNDERSTAND violence differently; I think that the majority of women who do not train in the martial arts or sports like boxing see violence - from the "Chester the Molester" who jumps out from behind the bushes to a car-jacking or armed assault - as something that would/could never, ever, happen to them. I think it's more of a socialization thing - and not something innate - that causes we women to often second-guess ourselves and even pooh-pooh that "Spidey-sense" that tells us to prepare to fight or flee by telling ourselves we are "over-reacting". Think about it: most of our social upbringing revolves around us being lady-like and demure, quiet, delicate,
ReplyDeleteI heard it explained like this once: if we raised our dogs like we raise our children, it would be one jacked-up scene! What I mean by that is this: imagine if we separated female puppies from male puppies and explained the male's nipping at each other and play-fighting as "boys will be boys" but encouraged the females to be docile and calm (and reprimanded them if they were not). Crazy talk, right? But that's exactly what we do to human baby males and females -and we wonder why many women cannot defend themselves or even recognize when violence is eminent. Just sayin'...
Thanks for you views and comments Felicia and especially your support by reading my stuff.
ReplyDeleteI have to give some thought to your comment.