Discussion of The Notion of Gender-neutral Language

Gender neutrality simply refers to language that is not specific when it comes to gender and usually considers people generally, it does refer to women or men. People have at all times been taught on how to use masculine nouns and pronouns at some instances where the subject is not clear enough or even variable or probably when they tend to refer to both sexes.

Gender-neutral language may at times seem unnecessary to some writers, but consistency use of the masculine pronouns always gives the impression that women may not be among the group of persons to which the writer is referring. While some may respond that the masculine pronouns “he” and “his” refer to men and women both, the impression left is in the eye of the reader, not that of the writer. The fact that many readers read masculine pronouns to refer only to men, the writer, perhaps inadvertently, will have created the wrong impression. Furthermore, in the practice of law, those who use only masculine pronouns may find later - to their great regret -- that the supervising attorney or judge to whom the work submitted would never use masculine pronouns as general terms in her work.

The rule of thumb is that one should avoid the use of gender-specific language instead one should resort to alternatives like “he or she” only if there is no way to write the sentence without the pronouns. In most instances, one may rewrite a sentence so as to avoid the need for gender-based pronouns. There are three methods explained below. The first of the three is the most desirable. Do not use “their” as an alternative to his or her; “their” should be used only when referring to a plural subject. Each of the rules here offers a method of avoiding gender-based language.

Nonverbal communication “involves those nonverbal stimuli in a communication setting that are generated by both the source [speaker] and his or her use of the environment and that have potential message value for the source or receiver [listener] (“Non-verbal communication modes” 2010)

It simply means that a direct message is translated to the listener or observant without creating that message verbally. The way one sits, stands, gazes, and dresses are specific ways in which to convey a particular tone or indicate a mood or intention. It can be assumed that an architect of skyscrapers may intend for those who view it to be intimidated or humbled. Displaying photographs of friends and family in an office or cubicle can imply that the person who occupies that desk is sociable and finds importance in their personal relationships.

This mode of communication usually begins with the speakers” objective and that which they wish to express to their listener. The fact that the exact tone and direction is only clear to the person wishing to express it, they must “encode” their message in both their words and their actions or inactions so as to pass the point across, the latter frequently being subconscious. The listener is at all times left to identify the intentions of the speaker and decipher that which the other person is saying based on the words and actions expressed (Miller, & Perlman, 2009).

Research has strongly implied that women are more adept at both sending and receiving nonverbal cues, although both men and women are equally capable of being both senders and receptors (Miller, & Perlman, 2009)

When it comes to issues as to how nonverbal messages and physical cues are to be delivered and understood, women seem to be more alert to a more fine distinction in nonverbal cues and more proficient at purposefully sending nonverbal cues. An example may be wife or significant other who frequently uses the word “fine” to describe how they are doing, when it is clear in their paralanguage or undertone, that they are not fine and are in fact angered or unmoved by something (Exploring nonverbal communications, 2010). It is always accompanied by a gesture of arms being crossed at the chest, which is actually a defensive mechanism, or hands on their hips, a show of attitude. For men, they will often exclaim their distaste with having to be “mind readers” the source of the tension is usually evident simply by using their eyes to hear the subtle nonverbal cues. Women are usually equipped in that they tend to comprehend nonverbal cues naturally; they are the emotionally mature and sensitive sex, and they have a higher capacity to accurately pinpoint nonverbal communication (Miller, & Perlman, 2009).

Men may not have the same intimacy in conversation that women do, not because of the sensitivity level being lower in men, but because men are not often taught to engage themselves too closely in intimate situations. In fact, a common misconception that many women have is that a man seems disengaged from conversation if the looks around, shifts what seems to be uncomfortably, or makes extraneous noises simply because those factors indicate a lack of interest in the conversation (Exploring nonverbal communications, 2010).

References

1. Endress, P. (Artist). (2010). Nonverbal communication demonstration. [Web]. Retrieved from http: //www.maximumadvantage.com/non-verbal-communication-demonstration.html
2. Exploring nonverbal communications. UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California. Retrieved from http: //nonverbal.ucsc.edu/
3. Miller, R, & Perlman, D. (2009). Intimate relationships, p.143-176. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
4. Navarro, J. (2009), Body language myths [Web log message]. Retrieved from http: //www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/200910/body-language-myths
5. Navarro, J. (2009), The Key to understanding body language [Web log message]. Retrieved from http: //www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/200910/the-key-understanding-body-language
6. Nonverbal communication. (2010). Retrieved from http: //www.maximumadvantage.com/nonverbal-communication.html
7. Non-verbal communication modes. (2010, May 14). Retrieved from http: //www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/lead689/NonVerbal.html
8. Olson, B. (1999). Perceptions of nonverbal communication: a comparison of corporate and undergraduate samples.
9. Manuscript submitted for publication, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin. Retrieved from http: //murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/jur/1999/olson.pdf
10. Pavlova, M, Guerreschi, M, Lutzenberger, W, Sokolov, A, & Krägeloh-Mann, I. (2010). Cortical response to social interaction is affected by gender.. NeuroImage, 50(3), Retrieved from http: //search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=48
11. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand me, p.267-272. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.