In support, Spender (1980) says that before the naming of sexism, it was the behaviour of women that was problematic if they challenged the actions of some men. ‘Without a name the concept they were trying to present was suspect, with the result that it was women’s behaviour requiring explanation which could be categorised as anything from neurotic to ridiculous’.
Sexism in language is so ingrained that people can be unaware that language is biased and that words and phrases used can be offensive and demeaning to women. In adherence to the dominant ideology writing and speaking in the sexist mode seems normal and unquestionable, whilst going to the trouble of changing our normal methods feels unnecessarily awkward and pedantic.
Those who are dominant also hold the power by dictating how language is used. In her book Man Made Language, Spender says that males, as the dominant force, are,
’the group which has the power to ordain the structure of language, thought and reality and has the potential to create a world in which they are the central figures, while those who are not of their group are peripheral and therefore maybe exploited.’
(1995:p143)
Sexist language can imply that women as a social group are inferior to men until more people challenge assumptions about the sexes, namely of gender stereotypes.
In 1980 I entered a macho stereotypical male environment when joining the police cadets. My course consisted of seventy-two people; twelve were female. These young women were always titled ‘girl cadets’. The derogatory and patronising terms ‘love’, ‘pet’ and ‘treasure’ were used in abundance. It was acceptable for women to be treated as inferior to men and indeed their presence was seen as tokenism.
Since that time in the early 1980’s significant progress has been made and women are less often confronted with conscious discrimination today than they were then. The difficulty still to be resolved is how to eradicate the subliminal messages conveyed by the use of the masculine dominated language we use everyday.
Adhering to sexist stereotypes women are characterised as emotional, weak, irrational, sentimental, dependent, passive, inferior and caring. Men are characterised as unemotional, strong, rational, sensible, independent, dominant, superior and uncaring; a marked difference between the two. To rectify, both men and women need to be represented as whole human beings with strengths and weaknesses and not bound to only masculine or feminine characteristics.
The distinct asymmetry of our lexis shows how language use can be sexist. The word man is often used, to describe human beings in general. Man is often taken to include woman; but the term is ambiguous. Wareing (1999) says that speakers and writers often blur the distinction between the use of the word ‘Man’ generically, to mean women, men, girls and boys, and the use of man to mean only men.
This gives the impression that women are silent or simply less important than men. Empirical research by sociologists in the United States tested the hypothesis that the word man is generally understood to mean men and women. They found it not the case. ‘When you use the word man generically people do tend to think male and tend not to think female. Excluding women from language excludes women from conscious thought. It is, therefore, unacceptable to use man to mean humanity in general’.
Masculine centred language also renders women invisible. Miller and Swift (1988) state that the practice of assigning masculine gender to neutral terms comes from the fact that every language reflects the prejudices of the society in which it evolved. The use of gender-neutral language may seem unnecessary to some, but the consistent use of masculine pronouns, such as him, his and he, may leave the impression that women could not be among the group to which the writer or speaker is referring. Many readers and listeners perceive masculine pronouns to refer only to men. Words, which refer to people, are often not neutral though we think they are. If femaleness is not marked then often the assumption is that the person is male and thus the woman disappears.
That said the avoidance of marked and unmarked terms and using parallel terms of address such as girls and boys, women and men, or ladies and gentlemen can develop more appropriate language. Why use chairman or even lady chairman when we can use chairperson or chair. It is becoming more acceptable to use terms, which do not mark gender, although the structure of our language still influences the rate of this social change. Society as a whole now has more cognisance of sexism in language but the amount of awareness still differs between groups and indeed individuals.
Where it is necessary to mark gender there should be equitable use of the words female and male. We need to make it explicit when a masculine word is not being used generically. Male manager or male executive is less ambiguous than a businessman; often used either generically, or as the implied assumption that all business personnel are men. The term male managers at least reflect the assumption that some managers might be female.
Another issue in determining the existence of discrimination is that it may take subtle forms but still have a detrimental effect on women by semantic derogation. According to Schulz (1975) there are more positive words for males in language, and irrespective of origin or intent; words marked female are marked negatively. We can compare the words spinster and bachelor. They hold the same meaning i.e. an unmarried person but have positive connation for males and negative for women. A natural collocation for bachelor is ‘eligible bachelor’ but it doesn’t carry the same association with spinster. Schulz also investigated the use of titles and whilst male titles have retained their original positive meanings female titles have changed, ending more often than not with sexually debased meanings. For example Sir is used as a form of respect, yet Madam can be a formal mode of address for a female but can also denote the keeper of a brothel. We can judge the meanings attached to Master and Mistress in the same way. Consider also the phrases, ‘he’s a professional’, to ‘she’s a professional’. The male an expert and accomplished at what he does, the female a prostitute, yet identical language used for both.
Men and women behaving in similar ways may also be perceived differently;
HE'S not at his desk - He must be at a meeting.
SHE'S not at her desk - She must be in the toilets.
HE'S having lunch with the boss - He's on his way up.
SHE'S having lunch with the boss - They must be having an affair.
Women also use language in a different way to men. Lakoff (1975) states that women lack authority and seriousness, conviction and confidence, exampled by use of ‘tag’ questions such as ‘I’ll set up the meeting for four, OK? She contrasts this with the forceful and effective language of men; women are tentative, hesitant, trivial and therefore in some way deficient.
Spender (1980) concluded that not only do men and women behave differently when it comes to turn taking in conversation, but they also differ in other significant aspects of conversational behaviour such as co-operation, competitiveness and aggression.
If language is already male dominated, then use of language in different ways by men and women will make it more difficult for the sexes to communicate and discrimination will remain in place.
In conclusion sexist language implies that women as a social group are inferior to men, and will remain so until more people challenge assumptions. In aiming for a non-sexist standard of language, we need to present positive images of women and men. Women need not be represented in terms of their marital status or in relation to their husband’s job, but positive images, which show women and men in flexible, diverse roles which challenge traditional stereotypes, need to be offered.
When we identify that language is sexist, we believe it emphasises unfairness against women and this then leads to an inequitable way of thinking and a biased understanding. Only when non-sexist language becomes the norm will its use seem acceptable and common sense. Until that happens, conscious effort will need to remain. Just as we would seek to avoid terms, which are discriminatory on the basis of a person’s religion, race or disability, so attention should be demanded in relation to terms, which are described as sexist.
Des Coop (Words 1645 - excluding quotes and bibliography)
Bibliography
Brehm S, Kassin S, Fein S, (1999) Social Psychology, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Crystal D, (1995) Pronunciations of English: The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press.
Miller C and Swift K, (1988) The Handbook of Non-sexist Writing, New York: Lippincott.
Mills S, (1995) Feminist Stylistics, London Routledge.
Queens University Belfast (1992) Guidelines on the Use of Gender-Free Language http://www.qub.ac.uk/eou/policies&procedures/genderfreelang.html Accessed 17/4/07
Schulz M, (1975a) The Semantic Derogation of Women, in Spender D, (1998) Man Made Language 2nd Ed. London, Pandora Press, pp. 16-19
Spender D, (1998) Man Made Language 2nd Ed, London, Pandora Press.
Stanton, N, (1996) Mastering Communication, Macmillan Press: Hampshire.
Thomas L and Wareing S, (2004), Language Society and Power, London, Routledge.
