The essay addresses all men and women having problems in conversing with each other. The purpose of the paper is to show that most problems occur in the families when couples come to understand that their conversational habits are very different. It analyzes how those patterns differ, how each partner interprets the behavior of the other and how these problems could be solved if each side realizes the problem. The author of the article claims that women in marriage much more often than man focus on intangible assets as the major problems. This claim is also supported by the research of Andrew Hacker which conducted his study way back in the 70's and the authors own research proved the problem to be still existent to this day. For women she says it is lack of communication, as wives want their husband to be their conversational partners. On the other hand husbands view this situation as unimportant, that is where the initial problem develops from.



The essay provides a lot of support material to prove author's point of view. It includes the research conducted by Eleanor Maccoby, who was studying the behavior of the children while they are interacting in the same sex groups. It showed that boys and girls have totally different values and norms from young age which would continue to be true when they grow up. This research helps the author in comparing her own research on men's and women's conversational patters. The ideas of her colleague proved by the scientific data leads her to the conclusion that the for girls and for boys just like for men and women conversations mean different things in life. These researches being a factual evidence combines with an expert opinion, together gives us a quite strong persuasive tone of the paper.

Another aspect of men and women communication introduced in the essay is that of a different perception of each gender of the talking. So girls view talking as something comforting and being a cornerstone of the friendship as author indicates. On the other hand boy and man, view communication as a defensive procedure; their groups are larger then girls? and more hierarchical, that is why they have to prove to be on top of the group rather than being ?one-down? when they have to listen. For boys it's more of a self-actualization need when they talk in the group, to show the other their ability. For women, however, it is a psychological and belongingness need, which leads to great uncomforting when not satisfied.

A strong point that gives prove to the correctness of the argument of this paper is the description of body language particularities for each of the sexes. The research by psychologist Bruce Dorval of children and adults communicating in same sex groups show that men's and women's gestures and behavior differs greatly. So females looked straight as each other, which meant for them attentive listening, and for males looking elsewhere and sometimes glaring at each other meant the same. Thus, again the author proves that these differences begin in the childhood and continue on in the adult life. The physical alignment as the author puts it and defines as different body language while talking or listening become one of the strongest barriers in cross-gender communication.

Switching topics frequently and reacting to someone else's problems is yet another point made by the author to show that men are poles apart from women on this subject. Interviews of the boys of different ages have indicated that they dismiss each other's problems, while girls consider such reactions as unsupportive. While men are switching topics, women make a lot of noises when communicating so as to show their attention and support. Men do not do that and consider it a disturbance and inattention. Again this arouses misunderstanding between them, and again proves the debated author's point of view.

To give the dispute a finishing evident support the author provides a standpoint of men being agonistic and "warlike" when any conversation becomes a debate, while women wait for support and understanding. She proves if by the book "Fighting for Life," by Walter Ong.

The essay includes a multilayered support evidence of the author's arguable point. She is proving that men and women communication patterns are different in many points and she does provide those points. Her supporting points are appropriate to the paper subject, as she holds a continuous defense of her theory. She proves if by her own researches and by other people's as well, actually professionals in the field of study. Those researches are also taken from different time periods and different perspectives to show that her discussed topic was and remains significant not only to her but to the American society as a whole, which undergoes a troubling problem of high rate of divorces.

This paper has strong and convincing interpretation, first of all because the author views the problem from different sides and tries to explain where the initial problem came from. She gives support to her claims from different sources (male and female authors) and provides unbiased research materials conducted by her. This systematic approach to the question discussed shows the origins of the problem, the contents of it (the reactions, the behaviors, the perceptions of the sides) and conclusions of the author. Her support can be considered effective because the sustainable support leads the reader himself/herself to the conclusion the author want us to see.

She takes a lot of examples from life and makes it easier and more convincing for the reader to relate the discussed topic with real life. Fro young people this article is interesting because it provides valuable information about gender differences and could help to avoid or solve many problems. For older audience, such as already married couple it also could be a saving pill, because it does offer a solution in the end. The example of a couple, when a guy listened to girl's talks in a very particular and unusual way, is a vivid illustration of drastic differences in life perception of both genders. Although the problem existed, the couple solved it by getting to know that it exists in the first place and why they think differently of it. When that was decided, they found a saving compromise which was painless to both of them. That short story actually explains the whole complexity of the problem the author is trying to tell us.

Personally for me, this essay was a very convincing and informative one. All the evidence provided in it served to prove author's point of view, and I think she did prove it with great success. The argument was step-by-step discussed and supported by various real life examples and simple to understand, for a non-professional, definitions. All of that made if possible for the paper to be easily read and perceived without me reading it more that two times. The simplicity of the used language and presented logical supportive facts composed the essay's body, which in turn led to a logical conclusion.

This paper was not only correctly written in the sense of scientific approach to the matter discussed, but also linguistically and grammatically appropriate style helped to comprehend what the author was addressing. It provides the thesis statement in the beginning, supportive evidence in the body and an appropriate conclusion which naturally comes from the discussion. I believe this fact to be the strongest aspect of the essay.

I think that this essay is an encouraging piece of work that combined accommodating facts to show that such a problem as communication gap between genders exist. Its logical text structure as was already mentioned reaches the audience, gets its attention and accomplishes author's goal of getting the readers to think about the problem.