Tannen is writing about how she recognised that men and women use language differently as well as how each gender respond to discussions in different occasions. In the process, she is also suggesting why such differences should be recognised. And I feel that I agree with her premise to a small extent.
I feel that I did not really manage to relate to her findings. Firstly, the culture that she is in is different. She quoted her colleague that challenging students’ comments is essential for developing the students’ mind and debating skills. Granted that it is true, it is not so widely applied here in Singapore, though. Experience tells me that dealing with what is in the syllabus, is the most important aspect of my education. Any question posed not in the syllabus will be deemed irrelevant and hence will not be answered. This very mind-set cannot and will not recognize the deviation in the way men and women use language. And hence, the premise that it should be recognized is irrelevant.
I liked the way she used personal story and anecdote to present her premise. She did not explicitly tell her readers why they should adapt her method but rather, she narrated it in such a way that her readers can relate to. In this way, her readers would subconsciously nod in agreement to her points without her trying to argue for it. And I personally think that is an intelligent way of laying out your argument.
While her use of rather informal tone in presenting ideas served a very good purpose, I feel that she should still be cautious. Although her audience are the university professors, they can still be divided into a stratum: the very experienced and the otherwise. Those who have a great load of experience on hand might not be as receptive to the idea as those who are new to the academia. They might take it as a gesture and challenge to criticize their reputation and their way of teaching, compared to the new ones who would be more than glad to learn from others experiences. And the tone might be thought as disrespectful, as they might feel that they deserve a more formal approach (through hard facts, perhaps) rather than a mere conversation.