Teaching within institutions that prototypically privilege the social order of language is often problematic for both genders, especially because we tend to occupy masculine lines of rhetoric. The "standards" that women adhere to are not always associated in the feminine construction, and when we question "standards," the language base we utilize is rooted according to a patriarchal construction. When Luce Irigaray and other feminist writers argued that we must find new ways of creating discourse, she called for a complex construct, one that challenges the social order; that is, Irigaray and others asked society to consider shades of discourse that recognize tolerance, empathy, compassion, and ambiguity. This paper will illustrate how the masculine and feminine use language differently--in various forums, in negotiable lines between both sets of discourse. Some of the central questions this paper will examine include, how does the way we use language in an organized institution, in specific forums, differ based on the amount of perceived power/privilege we have? How do male and female colleagues communicate differently yet along similar lines when it pertains to bureaucratic tasks within a University setting? Women's discourse, often misconstrued, is characterized along lines of pink-collar tasks, We metaphorically clear tables and manage tasks that others are unwilling to attend or wish to ignore. More specifically, we aim to reconcile lines of communication within the institution and use compassionate rhetoric; as a result, those who use such rhetoric are perceived in negative connotations. This work is often rendered invisible or marginalized in most work-place environments, but this paper will argue how these tasks benefit the University setting and how they might function differently in an idealized setting such as Hawai'i. (Contains a bibliography.)