Genderlect Syles

I am klutzy and my friends tell me I should die my hair blond because it fits my personality. I always tell stories about my silly moments like when I followed the blue H signs thinking it would lead my to a highway, but it led me to the hospital. When I am a story teller, I like to tell foolish stories. I never realized that the type of stories I tell reflect my gender. When males tell stories, they like to tell stories where they are a hero. My boyfriend likes to hunt and he will rarely telling me about his day unless he shot something. When having a conversation with my boyfriend, I ask about his day, about work, who he was with, and several questions that relate to the others. I also ask questions and let him know when I'm listening, while I on the other hand have to repeat what I say until he is able to remember what I had said and rarely asks questions unless he is very concerned. These differences reflect the report that men use to talk and the rapport that women use to talk.
The more the theory went in depth, the more I continued to laugh because it was true. The only thing I did not agree with is that women see conflict as damage. I do not like to be mad at someone for long periods of time because I am afraid of the damage, but I also love the competition. This theory fascinates me which is why I am currently taking gender and communications. I love to hear the differences between men and women so this theory was very interesting.

Face- Negotiation

When I introduce myself, I want people to think of me as kind and outgoing. I make sure I have a smile accross my face to help others make the connection. My face is how I want others to see me and using expressions for nonverbals to help others see that I can be a friendly person. Types of culture, tyle of self-construal, type of face maintenance strategies, and conflict management strategies help create a face for an individual.
I am part of an individualistic concert where I have indidual goals from other in my culture and my face is different from several others. My self-image is also independent because it is still different from others in my culture. My face maintenance strategy also revolves around my own face, unless I am in a relationship or part of a team, I try to make my face stand out and be unique. When there is conflict, I usually end up obliging or dominating. I like to bicker leaving myself under the dominating category, but during a real fight, I usually give in so that the anger may pass, leaving me under obliging.
This theory is also very complex. There seems to be several steps under several categories.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management

When meeting someone new, several questions may pop into my head: Who are they? Will they think I'm strange if I start talking to them? Will they acknowledge me? This feeling makes me nervous and anxious, but after we make it through the introductions, the feeling subsides. The anxiety/uncertainty management theory concentrates on the introductions of meeting someone new, especially with interactions between different cultures (a basic cause). There can also be superficial causes or the moderator level.
There are four levels of the moderator: unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence, and unconscious competence. I always try to be conscious competence when speaking to someone new, but I usually find myself under conscious incompetence because I know I am doing something wrong and I have to find a way to fix the problem. During a culture meeting I had the first day of school, I felt nervous and anxious. One of their representatives from a student organization (which I was unaware of because it was the first day and I just wanted popcorn), I just agreed to several questions even though I had no clue what she was saying. The discomfort I felt lead into gifts and emails from the group during certain holidays, and I never had the courage to confess I did not belong in their group due to religion reasons. Although I was not trying to fix the problem, I was still under conscious incompetence.
Superficial causes covers several reactions to the meetings that cause anxiety and uncertainty. I agree with one of the axioms that related to connection with strangers. If I attracted to someone, I feel more anxious and uncertain which is the opposite of the axiom which states that the higher the attraction, the less uncertain someone should be.
There is a lot of information that goes into this theory. The superficial causes has several axioms that overwhelm the topic under the theory and I have a hard time taking it all in.

Spiral of Silence

In a crowd of people, a grotesque smell emerges. Instead of ignoring the odd smell, my family and friends like to point fingers. Occasionally there will be a brave soul to confess their smelly deed, but the rest of them like to keep their confessions to themselves. I can also admit to not taking responsibilities for my farts in a crowd, afraid of how others will react. As silly as it may be, myself, as well as others, not wanting to take responsibilities for their smells is an example of the spiral of silence. This occurs when someone thinks they are the minority and keeps their feelings to themselves.
Media also plays a major part in the spiral of silence letting the public know who is the minority. In the movie Shrek, Shrek is the obvious minority in the story. The story book creatures and the people who are under Lord Farquaad's rule are convinced all ogres are awful creatures when Princess Fiona is also a ogre after dark and men are fighting for her hand in marriage. Seeing that the king (media) lead everyone to believe ogres were ugly and terrible creatures, Princess Fiona did not want to admit she was an ogre because everyone would see her as ugly.
There are times when someone may be a minority, but have the confidence to speak out. This occurs when someone is very confident, start to believe their opinion is in the majority, or even wealthy and middle class people. There are also those who know they are the minority and flaunt it to let everyone else know.
I never like to admit when I am at fault or going to stand at in the crowd in a negative way. If my roommates yell for someone not putting a glass away, I never want to admit that I am the one at fault.

Agenda Setting Theory

There are two levels that build the agenda setting theory.
The first level starts with the media defining opinions of the viewers. Today, the big news story was the tragic news of the Virginia Tech massacre. This news was devastating enough with the comments of just how bad this situation was, including being the worst school shooting and possibly the worst shooting to ever happen in the United States. The words by the reporters made me cry instead of just being speechless. Part of this level is also who controls the agenda. According to McCombs and Shaw, the “Big Ten,” news, and politics are some of the setters. I agree with the news, and the “Big Ten,” but I think you have to be more involved in politics than I am to let that have an impact.
The second level deals with framing. George W. Bush is classified as a male, son of former president Bush, a republican, former governor of Texas, and different facts of President Bush create the framework. McCombs and Shaw also include that the media may persuade or inform us with additional facts on George Bush. Relevance and uncertainty also play a large part of the second level of this theory. This can also relate to the Virginia Tech story. I am a college student so this story had relevance because I live on a college campus and would be even more devastated if this incident were to happen at Kent State. There is also uncertainty because I do not know the whole story for it has yet to be released.
This theory seems too simple that it almost makes it difficult to really grasp. I felt like this theory revolved around politics and I am not into politics so I do not think I agreed with this theory as much as others. It also is a little boring than the previous theory and the media theories to come.

Cultivation Theory

Television has become an important part of every household, including mine. My house in Kent has five television sets and my house in Medina has four. At home we do not have cable television, but still I find myself sitting in the living room staring at boring infomercials. In Kent, I watch television more often, especially on the weekends when I catch up on recorded shows I did not have time to watch during the week or watch a few movies that are shown on TBS or Disney.
I try not to watch a lot of television, but I am one that needs to have it on all the time. Even though the T.V. will be on for noise, I end up watching every show that comes on, leaving me in the heavy viewer category according to Gerbner.
The "mean world syndrome" is expected from heavy television viewers. This term is defined as increasing fear of social environments when someone is a high television viewer. The mean world only affects me after I watch a scary movie or an unfamiliar show that turns out to be mysterious or scary. After these incidents, I find myself having a hard time sleeping or clenching my maze firmly in my hand while walking late at night. The majority of my constant television shows are chick-flick shows or Disney. This leads me to have a less violent behavior and not allowing the "mean world syndrome" take over my life.
Mainstreaming and resonance can also affect heavy viewers’ thoughts after watching television. When I watch shows with houses catching on fire, I feel very uncomfortable. This comfort decreases further when I see fire trucks or see something on fire, other than a candle. I lost my grandfather in a fire and my dorm caught on fire over a year ago makes my fear of fire increase. I probably would not have been affected by fire on television, but experiencing fire first hard makes ignoring my fear difficult. Resonance enforces my fear by affecting heavy viewers who increase fears from being part of a similar situation. Mainstreaming creates a trend of how they expect specific people (such as business owners or teachers) to be presented.
I enjoyed this theory and even though I was confused with mainstreaming. I also agree with high television viewers being impacted by the shows they watch, but only to a degree, then I disagree with sections as well. I am affected by walking alone at night after watching television, but I am not involved in violence, I do not expect cops to be around when needed, and I also do not judge people (or trust) people based on television. This leads me to believe that this theory needs more work, or an adjustment with the type of shows each individual watches.