"But What Do You Mean?" by Deborah Tannen

Deborah Tannen's essay, "But What Do You Mean?", discusses the ways men and women differ when holding a conversation with the opposite sex. Tannen explores seven topics of discussion where men and women differ from including; apologies, criticism, thank-yous, fighting, praise, complaints, and jokes. Tannen uses anecdotes, expert opinions, and contrasts to show how women and men would differ in a conversation. Tannen's contrasts range from women being more sensitive when holding a conversation with someone from men being straightforward in a conversation, and not holding back the truth. Tannen claims that women tend to take the other person's feeling's into account when talking with him or her; while me on the other hand, don't. Tannen's essay serves to show how one can have a conversation with someone of the opposite sex and still get his or her point across without confusing the other person.

Do you think Tannen feels critical towards the way men tend to hold their conversations?

How do you think Tannen's essay can help with conversational boundaries presented in her essay between men and women?

What does Tannen mean when she say's that "men are designed to maintain the one-up position, or at least avoid appearing one-down"?

anecdote: I recently sat in on a meeting at an insurance company where the sole woman, Helen, said "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" repeatedly. At one point she said, "I'm thinking out loud. I apologize." (391)

diction: Although the problem might have been outright sexism, I suspect her speech style, which differs from that of her male colleagues, masks her competence. (391)

irony: When you state your ideas, you hedge in order to fend off potential attacks. (393)

metaphor: When the other speaker doesn't reciprocate, a woman may feel like someone on a seesaw whose partner abandoned his end. (392)

personification: "Troubles Talk" can be a way to establish rapport with a colleague. (394)

D.C. to Wall Street: Drop Dead

Investors' anger at Obama is misplaced. Stock indexes don't 'think.' They don't like one president and dislike the next.

Daniel Gross's Newsweek article D.C to Wall Street Drop Dead, suggest that Wall Street who fueled the financial crisis in the stock market are now blaming Obama who's trying to fix the problem and wasn't even in office when the problem arose. Gross say's that this" bout of wealth destruction" started in October 2007 during Bush's presidency. He even restates what it seems many articles are saying, and that is that some believe Obama is doing too much. Except in Gross's article he just states that the only thing Obama should get rid of on his to-do list are Wall Street's opinions and ignore the Dow. As Gross say's, "Having deprived Americans of so much of their wealth, the market is today like Rush Limbaugh: an unpopular loudmouth prone to emotional outbursts."

Why does it seem that everyone is trying to make Obama out to be the bad guy when the economy wasn't his fault to begin with and all he's trying to do is make it better?

Does Gross sound as if he is trying to defend Obama or just make Wall Street sound as if they are "cry babies"?

Time Magazine: Obama's Reform Agenda: Is He Trying to Do Too Much?

David Von Drehle and Michael Scherer's Time Magazine article, Obama's Reform Agenda: Is He Trying Yo Do Too Much?, suggest that Barak Obama is trying to do too much and in reality is doing too little. The author's uses other expert opinions that also agree and believe that Obama's number one concern should be the economy. According to this article the wealthiest investor in the U.S., Warren Buffet stated that, "Job 1 is to win the war, the economic war. Job 2 is to win the economic war...". Retired CEO's of the Intel corp and General Electric's also agree with this comment. The article later goes on to say that, " promising higher standards for hiring, tighter controls on spending and greater transparency in execution", Obama is just setting himself up to let the Nation down. I agree that Obama is trying to do too much at once, but at least by adressing the issues and coming up with plans that would fix each issue instead of waiting for one to be solved; Obama is setting up guidelines that the Nation will know he will be following. This way the citizens of America won't have to wait in vain and in darkness. They would have some sort of deliverance to look forward to.

How would the authors claim affect the rest of the U.S. are who are currently behind Obama's policy's if the citizens of America were to read this article?

Why do the authors of this article believe it's such a bad thing or at least unintelligent idea to try and fix the Nation's problems all at once?