such powerful invectives. Girls, on the other hand, do not have to
renounce their mothers’ caring and connection to become women; they
learn to become themselves through connection.
In the wake of Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan, the idea of
inherent gender differences has come to define the discourse on men and
women to such an extent that many writers now take for granted that
women are fundamentally different from men in ways that make them
better at listening. For people who accept this premise, life is simple: All
the complexities of relationship can be dispensed with in favor of one all-
purpose explanation. Men do this; women do that. End of discussion.
This new wave of sexual typecasting is reflected in the popular recep-
tion of books that reduce every nuance, every polarity of conversation
between men and women to one gender distinction: men seek power;
women seek relationship. Sadly, a lot of people now take this for granted.
Perhaps the best way to begin making a difference in the quality of
listening between men and women is to unmake a difference. My point
isn’t that there aren’t conversational differences between men and women
but that perhaps it’s time to stop exaggerating and glorifying them.
Why are so many women and men so willing to assume that we’re
separated by a vast gender gap, that we speak different languages, and that
our destinies take us in different directions? Is it really a woman’s nature to
be caring and seek connection? Is it really a man’s nature to be indepen-
dent and seek power? Or do these polarities reflect the ways our culture
has—thus far—shaped the universal yearning to be appreciated?
Sometimes social and political factors provide the underlying expla-
nation for so- called gender distinctions. Might caring, for example, which
has been represented as a gender difference, be more adequately under-
7Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).
66 THE YEARNING TO BE UNDERSTOOD
stood as a way of negotiating from a position of low power? Perhaps some
women (and some men) are caring because of a need to please, which
stems from a lack of a sense of personal power. Thus the same woman who
appeals to the need for caring in debates with her husband may emphasize
rules in arguments with her children. The same social embeddedness that
promotes caring may sometimes make it difficult for women to recognize
their own self- interest. Perhaps rather than our apologizing for or celebrat-
ing gender differences, it might be more useful for us to talk with each
other, instead of about each other, and to move toward partnership, not
polarization.
Perhaps if we started listening to one another we could move toward
greater balance, in ourselves and our relationships. Perhaps women raised
to believe that happiness is to be found in selfless service to others could
learn more respect for their own strivings and capacity for independent
achievement. Perhaps men who seek identity only in achievement could
learn greater respect for the neglected dimensions of caring and concern.
In the process of relaxing rigid definitions of what it means to be a man
or a woman, perhaps fathers might learn to lower the walls they build
around themselves and reduce the gulf across which they relate to others
and guard their masculinity. Perhaps mothers, in learning more respect
for their own self- interest, could develop more respect for the boundary
between themselves and their children and allow the children more room
to become themselves.
If we can avoid thinking of gender differences as fixed and given,
perhaps we might begin to entertain the possibility that boys can identify
with their mothers’ nurturance and care to become more fully realized men
and better fathers. Similarly, we might begin to see that girls can identify
with their fathers as well
renounce their mothers’ caring and connection to become women; they
learn to become themselves through connection.
In the wake of Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan, the idea of
inherent gender differences has come to define the discourse on men and
women to such an extent that many writers now take for granted that
women are fundamentally different from men in ways that make them
better at listening. For people who accept this premise, life is simple: All
the complexities of relationship can be dispensed with in favor of one all-
purpose explanation. Men do this; women do that. End of discussion.
This new wave of sexual typecasting is reflected in the popular recep-
tion of books that reduce every nuance, every polarity of conversation
between men and women to one gender distinction: men seek power;
women seek relationship. Sadly, a lot of people now take this for granted.
Perhaps the best way to begin making a difference in the quality of
listening between men and women is to unmake a difference. My point
isn’t that there aren’t conversational differences between men and women
but that perhaps it’s time to stop exaggerating and glorifying them.
Why are so many women and men so willing to assume that we’re
separated by a vast gender gap, that we speak different languages, and that
our destinies take us in different directions? Is it really a woman’s nature to
be caring and seek connection? Is it really a man’s nature to be indepen-
dent and seek power? Or do these polarities reflect the ways our culture
has—thus far—shaped the universal yearning to be appreciated?
Sometimes social and political factors provide the underlying expla-
nation for so- called gender distinctions. Might caring, for example, which
has been represented as a gender difference, be more adequately under-
7Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).
66 THE YEARNING TO BE UNDERSTOOD
stood as a way of negotiating from a position of low power? Perhaps some
women (and some men) are caring because of a need to please, which
stems from a lack of a sense of personal power. Thus the same woman who
appeals to the need for caring in debates with her husband may emphasize
rules in arguments with her children. The same social embeddedness that
promotes caring may sometimes make it difficult for women to recognize
their own self- interest. Perhaps rather than our apologizing for or celebrat-
ing gender differences, it might be more useful for us to talk with each
other, instead of about each other, and to move toward partnership, not
polarization.
Perhaps if we started listening to one another we could move toward
greater balance, in ourselves and our relationships. Perhaps women raised
to believe that happiness is to be found in selfless service to others could
learn more respect for their own strivings and capacity for independent
achievement. Perhaps men who seek identity only in achievement could
learn greater respect for the neglected dimensions of caring and concern.
In the process of relaxing rigid definitions of what it means to be a man
or a woman, perhaps fathers might learn to lower the walls they build
around themselves and reduce the gulf across which they relate to others
and guard their masculinity. Perhaps mothers, in learning more respect
for their own self- interest, could develop more respect for the boundary
between themselves and their children and allow the children more room
to become themselves.
If we can avoid thinking of gender differences as fixed and given,
perhaps we might begin to entertain the possibility that boys can identify
with their mothers’ nurturance and care to become more fully realized men
and better fathers. Similarly, we might begin to see that girls can identify
with their fathers as well
Similar Books
