Language and Gender
The idea that language can be used as an instrument of oppression is one that is held by many critics of varying focus who stress the fact that language is both an instrument of social constraint and a means of resisting that constraint. It is an issue deeply embedded in the literary theory of gender and sexuality, race and nationality, and even social class. The idea of feminist criticism, where language is identified as one of the means through which patriarchal values are both maintained and resisted. Feminists are concerned with two main ways in which they claim women are oppressed by language, the first of which is the idea of male dominated language.
The issues can be noted in such minor parts of grammar such as pronouns but these are quite important in representing gender. A perfect example of this is in phrase "his and hers" (normally referring to something such as bath robes belonging to a couple). Here the masculine pronoun his is placed before the feminine pronoun. Many could say that this is sexist but it simply is due to the history of male domination in the English language.
There are many ways in which our language appears to devalue women. If, for example, you take the number of insulting terms for women and compared them to the number of insulting terms for men you will notice a drastic difference. Julia Stanley found that there were 220 words for a sexually promiscuous woman but only 20 for a man. Many degrading terms that are used to describe women have no male alternative, words like 'bitch' or 'slut'. Many of the words used for women are associated with either animals or have sexual orientations. Almost all the words are monosyllabic and incredibly harsh sounding. Just from hearing the sound of the words, their phonological pronunciation, gives you an idea of how insulting they are meant to be.
Brooks (1983), Dayhoff (1983), Hyde (1984) all researched the reaction to the idea of the generic 'he', where the default assumption is that someone is male or masculine. Their research suggests that men feel included and women feel excluded, in some cases alienated. The generic 'he' is the theory that 'he' has gained common usage through history. However, the common usage of this term can cause women to feel excluded by the term, men to feel subject to prejudicial treatment by language (i.e. when talking about criminals, drug-users etc), men to be seen as the standard by which ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Brooks (1983), Dayhoff (1983), Hyde (1984) all researched the reaction to the idea of the generic 'he', where the default assumption is that someone is male or masculine. Their research suggests that men feel included and women feel excluded, in some cases alienated. The generic 'he' is the theory that 'he' has gained common usage through history. However, the common usage of this term can cause women to feel excluded by the term, men to feel subject to prejudicial treatment by language (i.e. when talking about criminals, drug-users etc), men to be seen as the standard by which we must assess everything (default assumption). Furthermore, gender stereotypes will carry on existing unless the generic 'he' and default assumption are changed to reach a more neutral standpoint. This is why one has to specify when not following the default assumption, such as in the cases of male nurses and lady doctors. Many books, which deal with human beings in general, use male nouns such as men, man, and mankind, these all exclude women.
Many believe that the best option should be too avoid offence by not using single sex terms where necessary and try to be politically correct towards language representation. However, although political correctness is intended to be polite and respectful it can seem to be parodic and often hyperbolic. Thus, there are often mockeries of politically correct language, which suggest that some people are unwilling to inherit it. For example, sometimes words such as camerawoman deliverywoman are used in order to seem politically correct. Unfortunately, both seem humorous as the syllabify (in the case of deliverywoman) or the usage (in the case of camerawoman) seems unusual and slightly ridiculous.
People have become so familiar with the use of '-man' on the end of many words that it is pronounced as m(a)n instead of m(ae)n. Subsequently, some people believe that '-man' is a suffix and not a word because of the change in pronunciation.
The supreme affability principle states that language can convey any thought or meaning, which humans may want to communicate. This is why vocabulary is constantly being developed to reflect new ideas advances. This would mean that people would begin to use more neutral words and phrases as the stress for gender equality continues in modern society. This idea of course feeds back to Edward Sapir and Franz Boas Reflectionist model in that the language will become more neutral towards gender as society does.
However, forms of address still seem to be archaic in modern day society and only recently have people attempted to rectify it. For example, the female title Ms was introduced quite recently to create a female term with the same semantics as the male equivalent Mr. Before the creation of this word, women had to use the terms Mrs or miss. These would signify the woman's marital which was unfair when the men only had one single term so they could hide their own marital status. So, the phrase "Mr and Mrs" is pejorative to the woman, as they have to show their marital status yet their husband does not. An alternative to this phrase would be "Mr and Ms".
Gender difference is also demonstrated in the way that males and females interact with other during a conversational situation. It is a stereotyped belief that women talk a lot more than men, however in reality this is not the case as the trend is that in a mixed-sex conversation men talk twice as much as women. Women tend to take a much more co-operative approach during conversation, for example they make an effort to include others, use the first person plural more often and are much more willing to discuss issues raised by others. Whereas men are likely to interrupt more, ignore others and are reluctant to talk about topics introduced by other people, consequently taking a competitive approach to conversation.
It can be argued that the reason for females being less confident and assertive during conversation is due to the fact that they are seen to have a less powerful position in society than males. Another line of argument for the differences in conversational behavior is that men and women have different attitudes and values and this is reflected in their conversation skills. Studies show that the reason women are more supportive and sympathetic is down to more cooperative game play as children, men are dominant because as young children games are focused on competition and confrontation.
There is evidence that the language used to represent women has changed for the better in recent years. We no longer live in an andocentric society, as there as there are gender free words used in replacement of words relating to one gender. In the 70's words like s/he, humankind and chairperson were introduced so that words were not just male orientated. In the 80's the main thing to do was to avoid words with gender marking altogether. Like 'server' instead of 'waiter' or 'waitress'. There are certain words, which their meanings have changed making them more negative. Such as, 'mistress'. This used to be a word describing a housekeeper, whereas now it has gained a sexual connotation and is very rarely used to describe a housekeeper.
Although steps towards change are being taken it is going to be a lengthy process and a long time before women become totally equal and this is reflected in our language. Ultimately it will be up to society to decide what is acceptable and it is the people who have the power to make the necessary changes.
Emma Billsdon