According to Griffin (2003, p. 48), "most theories have an Achilles heel that makes them vulnerable to criticism." The purpose of this paper is to determine which criticisms might be levied against genderlect styles. Specifically, I will use five standards for evaluating theory in order to assess the relative worth of genderlect: accuracy, practicality, simplicity, consistency, and acuity. Based on this analysis, the conclusion will determine the extent to which genderlect styles can be characterized into what Griffin (2003, p. 38) calls "the good, the bad, and the ugly." That is, this paper will determine the ultimate usefulness of genderlect styles.

First, genderlect styles proposes that "male-female communication is cross-cultural communication" (Tannen, 1990, as cited in Griffin, 2003, p. 463). The theory proposes that women use communication in order to connect with others, and men use communication in order to achieve status. Because of these different functions of communication, the communication styles of the two groups vary.

Accuracy
The first standard is accuracy, which asks whether research supports the theory (Dainton & Zelley, in press). The answer to this question appears to be no. Griffin (2003) asserts that the theory uses only selective data. Goldsmith and Fulfs (1999) argue that there are problems with the "adequacy, sufficiency, relevance, and consistency of Tannen's evidence and with her use of empirical studies." Other scholars are even more critical, saying the theory is based on "experiments without controls, haphazard 'examples' drawn from mysterious (and never defined or outlined) encounters with random people" (Jones, 1998, p. 322). Clearly, the accuracy of genderlect styles seems to be a major concern.

Practicality
Practicality refers to whether real-world applications have been found for the theory (Dainton & Zelley, in press). Genderlect styles has proven to be a very popular theory both inside and outside of academic circles. As Griffin (2003, p. 472) points out "Tannen's analysis of common misunderstandings between men and women has struck a responsive chord in a million other readers. You Just Don't Understand was on the best-seller list for most of the 1990s." It seems that the theory has proven to have practical applications outside the realm of college theory classrooms. More importantly, Tannen provides the very specific advice of recommending sensitivity training for men, and assertiveness training for women (Griffin, 2003). Thus, theory is extremely practical.

Simplicity
The third criterion, simplicity, asks whether the theory was made with the fewest possible steps (Dainton & Zelley, in press). As Dainton and Zelley (in press) point out, this area of evaluation can be understood using the "three bears analogy," which means that theories should neither be overly simple nor overly complex. As regards genderlect styles, the theory may be too simple. Jones (1998, p. 322) asserts that Tannen "oversimplifies the complexities of where sex and gender intersect." Specifically, Tannen talks about gender differences, but then continues to divide the world into men and women, which are sex differences not gender differences. The conclusion is that the theory is too simple.

Consistency
Consistency is determined by looking at two factors: internal consistency and external consistency (Dainton & Zelley, in press). Internal consistency references whether all of the ideas are logically built on each other. Genderlect styles may not be as logical as it should be. According to Burke, Burroughs-Denhart, and McClish (cited in Griffin, 2003, p. 472) "although Tannen claims both male and female styles are equally valid, many of her comments and examples tend to put down masculine values." This implies that the theory does not have internal consistency.

External consistency asks if the theory is consistent with other theories. Genderlect fares poorly here as well. Troemel-Ploetz (1991, as cited in Griffin, 2003) argues that Tannen ignores issues of male dominance, control, power, sexism, and discrimination, among other things. "If you leave out power, you do not understand talk," (Troemel-Ploetz, 1991, as cited in Griffin, 2003, p. 472). The theory is also inconsistent with Dialectical Approaches (Griffin, 2003). In short, "in academic circles, Tannen's ideas are as outdated as the hoop skirt," (Jones, 1998, p. 322). Accordinly, the theory does not demonstrate external consistency.

Acuity
The final issue for theory evaluation is acuity, which "refers to the ability of a theory to provide insight into an otherwise intricate issue" (Dainton & Zelley, in press, p. 21). Given the attention placed on sex differences in communication, and the millions of dollars spent on self-help books such as You Just Don't Understand and Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus, it appears that gender communication is perceived as an intricate issue. Tannen herself claims that her theory has acuity, which textbook author Griffin confirms. "If my interpretation is correct, then readers, on hearing my explanation, will exclaim within their heads, 'Aha!'" (Tannen, 1984, as cited in Griffin, 2003, p. 471). Griffin follows this quote by asserting "I had the kind of aha reaction that Tannen says validates her theory" (Griffin, 2003, p. 471). It seems that Genderlect Styles makes a complex idea clear for many people, and so demonstrates acuity.

Conclusion
This paper evaluated Tannen's genderlect styles, a theory that claims that men and women represent different cultures, and therefore communicate differently (Griffin, 2003). Based on an analysis of five standards, the theory seems to have numerous Achilles' heels. The accuracy is poor, it is too simple, and it demonstrates neither internal nor external consistency. However, the theory seems to be very practical, and it demonstrates acuity. My conclusion is that the theory is of only moderate usefulness.