Gender and Politics in America - Essay Example

Gender and Politics in America Women are scarcely represented in political venues in most all societies of the world despite the fact that they represent a majority of the world’s population. They have historically played a small role in the hierarchal decision making processes of government, a legacy that lives on today. Unquestionably, women have contributed at least half to the building and maintaining of society but have been forced into a subordinate position thus precluding their participation in decision making processes in the political arena, the workplace and the home. Women’s historic omission from the political process is the result of the long-standing patriarchal social arrangement which only relatively recently has begun to soften somewhat. This discriminatory system that heavily favors men originated from both perpetual economic and rigid religious foundations that were present in the beginnings of mankind and strengthened throughout man’s development. The use of ‘man’ in the previous sentence illustrates how deep-rooted and widespread the imbalance of gender roles are in the psyche and therefore language of society. The control men exert over women cannot be better explained than by examining language usage because the commonly accepted words and phrases of a society reveals underlying and universal perceptions of gender roles. These perceived roles are the reason women have not enjoyed a representative voice in the government. “The gender role ideology is used as an ideological tool by patriarchy to place women within the private arena of home as mothers and wives and men in the public sphere. The larger democratic framework and level of democratization also impact women’s political participation” (Bari, 2005). Karl Marx is noted for his theories describing the inevitable social conflicts between the ruling and working classes. These reasoning’s parallel the social barriers women have endured throughout the ages. Those that rule whether they are church, government or financial leaders, shape the laws and ideology of a society. Consequently, the rules of society favor those in power which has been predominantly male in composition. Until the printing press allowed for ideas to be widely and freely circulated, the patriarchal dominance was total. Language was the tool of oppression yet proved to instigate the beginnings of emancipation. The proliferation of knowledge permeated both genders thus aided in moving the balance of power slightly back toward the center. At about the time of the printing press’s invention, women in America generally did not attend school. Education led to the growth of economic independence for women which translated in the growth of political power. “Without economic power, women are denied honor and prestige. Economic power has important consequences for what women can, or cannot do in a society” (Turner, 2003). Throughout the 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. Though the civil rights and feminist movements changed people’s attitudes and modified the way American society thinks and therefore speaks several decades ago, 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 it 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 a patently unfair treatment of women as compared to men. The intention of concealed sexism is 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. “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, 1999). Sexism as it exists in language is a controlled manner of speaking that perpetuates gender stereotypes and reinforces status disparities between men and women. 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 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 (Parks & Roberton, 1998). 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 though 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, 1998). 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 all both genders surveyed replied that an effort to overhaul and reform the language to eradicate sexist terms was not necessary (Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987). Its no wonder that because of the gender biases still prevalent in society as a whole, fewer women than men aspire to political office and still face discrimination in all areas of life. This bias is a constant deterrence women must face in every aspect of a political career, before and after the election. Additional evidence that a male dominated ideology openly exists in today’s society is the imbalance in the workplace. Women are paid less and have fewer opportunities for advancement in the workplace. They are also segregated by preconceived concepts of proper female occupations. Women still face the perceptions in society that they should be employed in service or supplemental positions such as fight attendants, maids, cooks, etc. This ideology remains from the archaic patriarchal system which strived to keep women economically inferior therefore socially inferior to men. The political arena, by definition, is a place of power which men continue to dominate and control. Not simply by number alone but in terms of common perception as well. Society’s perception of politicians are of outspoken, very public people which is the opposite patriarchal view that supports the soft-spoken woman that seldom ventures far from home both in a physical and intellectual sense. Though women’s movements can point to successes with regard to changing the attitudes and language of society in its attempt to balance the historical balance of authority, the goal for total equality has not yet resulted in the desired cultural reformation that is envisioned. In fact, with respect to politics, the male domination continues to follow a ‘business as usual’ path. In 1997, women comprised just 10 percent of the world’s political representatives. That year, 12 percent of the seats in the parliaments and congresses of the world were occupied by women. This was a decline from the mid-1980’s when 15 percent were women. Clearly, women face an uphill climb to best the prejudices that have prevailed throughout history (“Gender Bias”, 2001). Modern culture is presented as encompassing values and norms universal to all but there remain strong militarist, masculine customs of fraternity that permeates in the political realm. This social generality of the thought that defines the culture of power has always been dependent upon the exclusion of women. The public stage is still not widely regarded as a place for the stereotypical traits that associate women with a greater propensity for sentiment and emotion. Based on these deeply ingrained perceptions planted by the patriarchal society, women are not automatically viewed by most to be natural leaders. This assessment has also been prevalent in political theory which has only furthered the perception. Social theorists throughout the male-dominated history have consistently made the association of women as being the embodiment of human sexuality. Since sex has been considered an act that has been historically linked with evil intent in the religious dominated society, its symbol, women, must therefore be suppressed. An overt example of this can still be found in Muslim cultures where women must cover themselves at all times and have practically no civil rights. They certainly cannot take part in the political process. While the subjugation of women is obvious in the Arab world, western ideologies that act to suppress women are not as overt but exist just the same. Both traditional ways of thinking assert that women should not be involved in politics. Though this perception is found in underlying tones of western societies and not as apparent, the result is largely the same. Women still today are not fully accepted on the same social pedestal as men much the same as the poor and non-whites are not. These perceptions of social hierarchy were initiated and reinforced by the propaganda and rhetoric of the ruling class, just as described by Marx’s conflict theory. Civil Rights laws protect women, minorities and the disabled from being discriminated against but the perceptions that have been ingrained in society’s collective conscious persist. These perceptions, though irrational and patently unfair, persist and will probably continue for an indefinite period of time. Until society evolves beyond the prejudices of the past that were induced by those who had power so as to retain it, women will not be considered equal. Works Cited Bari, Farzana. “Women’s Political Participation: Issues and Challenges.” Division for the Advancement of Women. Bangkok, Thailand: (November 8-11 2005). November 26, 2006 Benokraitis, N.V. & Feagin, J.R. Modern Sexism. (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999. “Gender Bias in the Study of Politics.” International Women in Science and Engineering. (November 8, 2001). November 20, 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, pp. 395-398. Parks, J.B. & Roberton, M.A. “Contemporary Arguments Against Nonsexist Language: Blaubergs (1980) Revisted.” Sex Roles. (1998). Turner, J. The Structure of Sociological Theory. (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth, 2003. Read More