“Feminine identification processes are relational, whereas masculine identification processes tend
to deny relationships” (176). Women are dependent on other human beings and have no problem
admitting it, but men deny those relationships, even if they are dependent on others. Chodorow’s
claim holds true in the student writing Flynn examined. The narratives of female students are
relational—“stories of interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection.” Conversely, men’s
narratives are “stories of achievement, of separation, or of frustrated achievement”. (Magee,p. 117)
to deny relationships” (176). Women are dependent on other human beings and have no problem
admitting it, but men deny those relationships, even if they are dependent on others. Chodorow’s
claim holds true in the student writing Flynn examined. The narratives of female students are
relational—“stories of interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection.” Conversely, men’s
narratives are “stories of achievement, of separation, or of frustrated achievement”. (Magee,p. 117)
Chodorow's findings may hold true in the student writing that Flynn examined, but this small selection surely cannot account for and explain the writing styles of all men and women. In fact, I know that it does not. Although I am not a great writer myself, I often edit my boyfriend's papers-- I'm of the belief that it is always beneficial to have a second pair of eyes look something over. His writing is never void of relationships, nor does he deny their existence. I believe that maybe a large number of men and women fall in line with Chodorow's findings, but it is not fair to either gender to stereotype them all into one genre.
Upon reading the article by Bawarshi, I found a few sentences that can help me further explain my feelings about gender writing genres.
"This "social turn" (Trimbur) recognizes that there is more at work on the text than just the
writer's autonomous cognition; there are also various social forces that constitute the scene of
production within which the writer's cognition as well as his or her texts are situated and shaped"
(Bawarshi, pg. 69).
writer's autonomous cognition; there are also various social forces that constitute the scene of
production within which the writer's cognition as well as his or her texts are situated and shaped"
(Bawarshi, pg. 69).
This applies to the gender genre because while it may be the case that most men have experienced many of the same social forces and therefore write in similar ways (the same applies to women), it is also just as likely that men AND women of a certain ethnicity, locale, religion, etc. have experienced the same social forces that shape who they are as writers.
When I first began reading Allen's article, I agreed with his statement that "Rhetoric is often perceived as the art of persuasion, while science is generally seen as the art of demonstration (173). This idea implies, to use a figure of speech, that rhetoric and science should not be seen together in public" (Allen, p. 94). But as I continued to read there was another statement that stood out to me even more so:
"While the historic public face of science may exude objectivity, there is a pervasive, if less
openly discussed, subjective side. Even if scientists were able to collect data in a purely objective
way, Brent Slife and Richard Williams contend that “we cannot ignore the necessity of interpreting
the data yielded by scientific method” (5, emphasis in original)" (Allen, p.95).
openly discussed, subjective side. Even if scientists were able to collect data in a purely objective
way, Brent Slife and Richard Williams contend that “we cannot ignore the necessity of interpreting
the data yielded by scientific method” (5, emphasis in original)" (Allen, p.95).
Scientific data is nothing without a skilled, knowledgeable professional to analyze and interpret it based upon past experiences.