Sexism is alive and well in the English language - Essay Example

Sexism is alive and well in the English language What people perceive is their reality. This is awidely accepted theory postulated by many philosophers, sociologists and linguists. These perceptions are formulated by what is learned typically through societal interactions which play an important role in what reality is for everyone. Language is the expression of this reality and is not simply a detached tool for communicative purposes alone. If it were merely communicative, people would speak only in numerical terms. Language is ‘man-made,’ with emphasis on ‘man’, therefore the reality it portrays is as well. Throughout the known history of much of the world including the regions where the English language originated and developed, society has been dominated and controlled by patriarchal rule. The resulting product of the Language represents this dominance by means of categorizing the realities of society. Language establishes the boundaries of perception. Male references in everyday speech dominate language usage simply because males have historically dominated society and to a large extent still do. In short, the English language is sexist because it discriminates against women as an inherent feature of its development. Though the civil rights and feminist movements of several decades ago changed people’s attitudes and modified the way American society thinks and therefore speaks, the language largely remains male dominant. This discussion examines sexism in the English language, to what extent it permeates society and includes examples of why and how sexist language remains a fixture of language usage. Sexist language can be deliberate, concealed or controlled. The deliberate use of obvious and overtly derogatory sexist terminology is generally considered discriminatory and is patently unfair treatment of women as compared to men. The intention of concealed sexism is also deliberate and discriminatory but the delivery is of a covert nature. Controlled sexism is subtle and more usually not intended to be disparaging or harmful. This type of sexist language is integrated into society’s everyday speech, is considered to be normal and is not recognized by most people as the unfair or unequal treatment of women it is. “Subtle sexism is particularly interesting from both theoretical and practical perspectives because it may be quite prevalent, and may have an insidious impact on its victims” (Benokraitis & Feagin 99). Sexism as it exists in language is a controlled manner of speaking that perpetuates gender stereotypes and reinforces status disparities between men and women (Parks & Robertson 478). Those less sensitive to sexism as a whole tend not to define the demeaning terms they use as sexist language. These people are of the opinion that sexist language does not exist or are either consciously or subconsciously trying to safeguard traditional patriarchal social hierarchies. Those persons more receptive to sexism and the harm it causes do attempt to adjust their speech patterns so as not to offend (Segerstrom 1335). People may use sexist language simply because the use is habitual and they find it hard to alter terms or phrases used most or all of their lives. Additionally, people are continually exposed to sexist terms in the spoken and written language. To not disrupt a normal, rhythmic and understandable conversation, people use these terms without a thought of inappropriateness. Sexism is alive and well in the culture thus in language because it is self-perpetuating. “Conversational sexism is learned at an early stage, from the time a child is learning to speak” (Parks & Roberton 477). Language is learned at an early, impressionable age along with the sexism permeating it. However, studies have shown that though hard to change entirely, the use of sexist terms in everyday speech can be altered depending on the sensitivity level a person possesses regarding sexism. What is learned even early on in development can be re-learned to some extent if a person is aware of the disparity in language usage. According to one study’s findings, males of high school age were, not surprisingly, more probable to use sexist language than were their female counterparts. Women in college used pronouns that were gender neutral more commonly than men. The reason for this is that women from high school age forward are appreciably more concerned thus more cognizant of gender-bias in language than are men who do not consider sexism relevant in their or society’s use of language. Interestingly, the study also uncovered a general lack of interest in attempting to force society to change its sexist language usages. Not only males, but the majority of college women and school teachers of both genders surveyed replied that an effort to overhaul and reform the language to eradicate sexist terms was not necessary (Matheson & Kristiansen 398). Though women tend to use fewer gender specific pronouns, both males and females use similar references to gender when describing occupations another study discovered. According to the study, stereotypes are equally prevalent in both male and female college students’ vernacular when describing a person’s professional title. They typically refer to a college professor with the correct feminine or masculine pronoun but when describing a nurse or corporate executive revert back to stereotypical language usage, feminine for nurse and masculine for the executive. This matched other studies that also reported ‘occupational stereotyping’ is frequently associated with pronoun use that is of gender-bias (McMinn, Troyer, Hannum & Foster 155). Research on attitudes regarding the use of sexism in the language revealed that persons in the 1950’s and 60’s were willing, and more so than those of a younger age, to support the concept of language non-sexist in nature. People in this age group were exposed to the more idealistic times of the 1960’s and are still influenced by that social idealism. Though society’s sensitivities toward biases of all kinds progressed along with its language following the 1960’s, the young people of the study were less prone to change. While the younger persons were growing up, the term ‘politically correct’ had evolved into a derogatory term causing a number of younger persons to view non-biased language as disingenuous at best and at worst unnecessary. Young people are willing to change but are resentful of the guilt placed on them by society if they do not remember to always alter their terminology and choose their words carefully even in everyday conversational speech. This mixture of a growing societal sensitivity and an unwillingness to cater to what is perceived as compassion gone too far has resulted in a general stance of neutrality on the issue of sexist language. The sexism present in language is spoken seldom with thought of its meaning. It is a significant aspect of the culture that is passed down from one generation to the other normally with no intention. Children can only learn language habits from what they hear from those already comfortable with their language patterns. Well before a child enters school, they are already developing knowledge of gender-related stereotypes and roles that will, at least somewhat, stay with them for a lifetime. “By the age of three, children are able to distinguish males from females, and by the age of five, many children have already formed strong gender stereotypes. These gender stereotypes are constructed, shaped and maintained by societal values” (Serbin, Powlishta & Gulko 93). Literature, by way of having stories read to them, along with what they observe from their parents’ words and actions are the main key methods by which children learn social standards. Gender biases contained in books shape the way children formulate self images and how they view other people as well. Books have served to reflect and define people’s concept of feminine and masculine roles in society. In the 1970’s, children’s books were the subject of much criticism because they were found to be very biased with regard to stereotyping the sexes. An extensive study conducted during the 1980’s and 1990’s examined possible gender-biases used within the language of children’s books. The author’s use of language to describe females and males was the focus of the study. “As predicted, the 20 adjectives most commonly used to describe female characters were different in traditionally stereotypic ways from the 20 descriptors used for males” (Turner-Bowker 487). Words frequently used to portray males were fierce, terrible, great, proud, furious, horrible and big. Descriptive adjectives used for females frequently involved words such as sweet, frightened, weak, beautiful and scared. Through language, women have kept their position as the subordinate gender, less than equal in society’s perceptions because the patriarchal language misrepresents women’s experiences. Male’s experiences have retained their legitimacy through the use of traditional stereotypes interlaced in the male-centered English language. It does not accurately portray the reality of male or female lifestyles, rather, it distorts reality. This distorted perception of actual experiences originates from the hierarchal conceptions entrenched with Judeo-Christian beliefs and thus in the perceptions of modern day English speaking society. The belief that has affected the gender bias of the language views God, the Father, as being the supreme entity. Males are second followed by women, then children, all the animals, plants and lastly nature (Dodson Gray 81). The method by which gender biases are created, perceived and sustained can be understood by examining the way a society communicates through its specific use of language. The female’s lower position of social rank is reflected in how they are referred to by not only males but by females as well.  Language patterns also affect the way women express themselves. There are essentially three types of sexism found in language usage. It can be used to ignore, narrowly define or depreciate women. Language may simply not include femininity in many topics of normal conversation thus ignoring them. Generic, unspecified terms to identify gender are predominantly of a masculine construct which shows how language not only ignores but conceals the presence of women altogether. Women are often referred to in the context of their relationships whereas men are usually referred to in terms of their occupation. Language has traditionally narrowly defined women in this way. “The power to define women through language is seen in the tradition of women losing their names through marriage, for example” (Weatherall 3). Some call attention to the connection between the cultural custom of changing names to a women’s loss of her individuality. A prime example of how sexism influences language and vise versa can be easily found in the language of sports. Women’s basketball teams still use the term man-to-man defense. A school mascot is generally seen in the masculine, for example, the Cougars. The men’s teams are called the Cougars while the women’s teams are called the Lady Cougars. The feminizing of the men’s team by which to label the women’s team is hardly an uncommon occurrence in sports organizations. This implies that the ‘Lady Cougars’ are the female’s version of the male team and not an entity in and of themselves. A few schools have mandated that the mascots be gender neutral but the male coach still usually cashes larger paychecks than female coaches (Parks & Robertson 485). Sports are but one example of this type of feminization. The term ‘ladies auxiliary’ is attached to many groups that are male dominated. The sexist language of society represents the actions, beliefs and characteristics of males as if they are the model for humans representing all people both male and female. Women are not only excluded, they are invisible in terms of language usage. The status of women in language often depends on or is derived from the independent status representing men. By consigning women to a subordinate, dependent standing, the sexism ingrained in language precludes the representation of men and women as dissimilar yet equal persons. One example of this entails pairs of terms which obviously restrict referencing of a gender with the term describing females usually encompassing the less complimentary meaning of the pair. The words master and mistress are a typical example of this language pairing. ‘Master’ refers to ‘host,’ the feminine version ‘mistress’ refers to ‘hostess.’ Master also means the dominant one in a relationship and mistress can also mean the man’s lover outside of his marriage, a negative connotation. The word mistress is dependent on there being a man involved who is the dominant one in the relationship. ‘Governor’ is a term referring to an individual who has been chosen above all others to rule over or to ‘govern’ a state but the term ‘governess’ generally refers to a maid or caretaker of children. ‘Professional’ is a word that, when used to describe a man, means a highly qualified, well educated and/or well paid person. When someone says, ‘he’s a professional’ the meaning is generally interpreted as a man who is a lawyer, doctor or football player for example. By contrast when someone says, ‘she’s a professional’, most interpret the meaning as a woman who makes her living as a prostitute. The word ‘tramp’ when directed at a woman also has the same meaning but when applied to a man, it refers to a homeless person that travels around and is not steadily employed. The phrase, ‘the man on the street’ refers to an ordinary guy but ‘the woman on the street’ refers to, again, a prostitute. A shrew is a small animal that can become ill-tempered when provoked. The dictionary defines a shrew as an animal or as an ill-tempered woman. The word ‘shrewd’ is an adaptation of the word shrew. This word is commonly used in a phrase such as ‘he’s shrewd in his business dealings.’ Its meaning for men has evolved in language as being quite different than for women. The use of sexist terms to describe and usually demean females is typical in the English language. Another good example are schoolchildren who have many degrading terms of a sexual nature in which to describe females but there are much fewer to describe males. “American English has no fewer than 220 words for a sexually promiscuous woman, but only twenty for sexually promiscuous men” (Liu, 2005). The English language illustrates an implied inferiority of women in society such as in the titles Mrs. and Miss. It is unimportant for men to be identified as married or not as their status does not change in either case. When a woman is identified as Mrs., they now belong to a man and are deemed more important to society albeit in a subordinate role. Though in recent years this particular type of labeling has all but disappeared, the historical significance is relevant as the subordination of women as identified in the ‘Mrs.’ and ‘Miss’ categorizations remains apparent in language usages. The stereotypical imagery in these types of words is rooted from the generalized and simplified behaviors of men and women as seen through the eyes of a patriarchal based society. The images portrayed in language are inaccurate and impede how the evolving functions of women are typically characterized by both males and females. Men are seldom portrayed through language by what relationship they have to women. Men are rarely described in terms of their appearance while women are routinely described in such a way which serves to exclude other features of women. The stereotyping of men and women often occurs relative to archaic gender roles and occupation. Professional women, those who are employed, are still referred to as the being the ‘mother of,’ ‘daughter of,’ or ‘wife of’ someone while professional men are much less likely to be referred to in this way. The use of ‘he/his, him’ as generic nouns and pronouns for both genders is a frequent form of sexism in language. Suffixes such as ‘ette,’ and ‘ess’ trivialized the social status of women. The English language “does not possess a third person singular pronoun which is gender-neutral, instead, the ‘masculine’ pronouns ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ are generally used to refer to both men and women” (Liu, 2005). These inaccurate terms are confusing and demean women. Language closely reflects the attitudes of a society. The prevalent sexism that permeates society has resulted in a sexist language. Until recent times, women, throughout many generations of humankind, were thought of only as secondary to men in society. They remained at home and had little or no voice in the family or societal matters. For example, black males were allowed to vote in the U.S. approximately 60 years before females of any color. The country where all ‘men’ were ‘created equal’ has been a place of severe subjugation and repression especially for women. This fact has been well represented in the language. Sexism present in language is a reflection of people’s sexist perceptions which, by use of this language, only perpetuates this societal shortcoming. Therefore, if the language is to be altered so as to be inclusive to women, the perceptions of society must first change. Works Cited Benokraitis, N.V. & Feagin, J.R. Modern Sexism. (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999. Dodson Gray, Elizabeth. Green Paradise Lost. Wellesley, MA; Roundtable Press, 1981. Liu, Xiaolan. “Sexism in Language.” E-writer Magazine. (December 16, 2005). October 31, 2006 Matheson, K. & Kristiansen, C. M. “The Effect of Sexist Attitudes and Social Structure on the Use of Sex-Biased Pronouns.” The Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 127, (1987), pp. 395-398. McMinn, M. R.; Troyer, P. K.; Hannum, L. E.; & Foster, J. D. “Teaching Nonsexist Language to College Students.” Journal of Experimental Education. Vol. 59, (1991), pp. 153-161. Parks, J.B. & Roberton, M.A. “Contemporary Arguments Against Nonsexist Language: Blaubergs (1980) Revisited.” Sex Roles. Vol. 39, (1980), pp. 445-461. Parks, J.B. & Robertson, M.A.. “Influence of Age, Gender, and Context on Attitudes Toward Sexist/Non-sexist Language.” Sex Roles. Vol. 38, (1998), pp. 477-494. Segerstrom, S.C. “Optimism and Attentional Bias for Negative and Positive Stimuli.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 27, (2001), pp. 1334-1343. Serbin, L. A.; Powlishta, K. K.; & Gulko, J. “The Development of Sex Typing in Middle Childhood.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Vol. 232, I. 58, (1993). Turner-Bowker, D. M. “Gender Stereotyped Descriptors in Children’s Picture Books: Does ‘Curious Jane’ Exist in the Literature?” Sex Roles. Vol. 35, (1996), pp. 461-488. Weatherall, A. “Re-visioning Gender and Language Research.” Women and Language. Vol. 21, (1998), pp. 1-9. Read More