Language
and gender
In this essay I will be discussing my opinion, feminist
linguistic and socio linguistic opinions on whether or not language is
inherently sexist towards women. I personally believe that although there has
been slight changes in language that lead us to believe it is equal, there is
still much more that can be done. Due to the derogation of words, men continue
to dominant the English language.
Through my personal investigation I looked at the etymology of the
word ‘spinster’ and the idea that the connotations of words associated with
women are negative is seeming to be true. The original definition of the word
‘spinster’ is someone who practises spinning as their occupation, it is clear
to see that over time the connotations of the word have changed drastically to
the extent that the definition of the word has also changed. The word has
undergone semantic derogation. It has moved from a positive semantic space to a
negative. The lexical has now taken the meaning of an unwanted woman. The idea
of derogation of lexis most commonly complies with words which are associated
to woman, this therefore shows that sexism in language is apparent. Schulz explores the
semantic derogation of women, she argues that there are a significant amount of
slang words used to describe women that obtain negative connotations. She goes
on to argue that the reason for this is because men fear women's attitudes and
that these slang insults aimed at women, said by men are the only outlet men
have. Schulz argues that words that were once used in a nice and gentlemanly
way have changed and have become rude and slanderous towards women, this is
derogation in action. The main issue Schulz addresses is that the language we
use today we carry on through to the next generation. In addition, if society
continues to use these slang words in order to insult women then a new
generation will start to use them and it creates a vicious cycle that will
continue unless a generation decides to stop using this part of language.
Many theorists such as, Simon Heffer and Sara Mills very much
support the idea that English language is male dominated from the verbs we use
to the connotations attached to lexis. Mills investigated the various lexical pairs and
how they are lexical asymmetric to one another. She also did further research
into the correlation between femininity and politeness and masculinity and
impoliteness. She considered whether the politeness used was hereditary by
women, essentially she focused on the way in which certain genders speak and
the hereditary traits in which they entail. I agree with Mills’ opinion on
this subject matter because it is clear to see in numerous social situations
that the way in which males speak and interact with each other is much more
impolite than the way in which females do. From my own personal research I
observed my male peers and recognised that they do not have as many boundaries
with each other as females do. Especially when it comes to the humour they use,
the things they say to each other most women would interpret to be offensive
and inappropriate but they take it as a joke. They also use a lot more taboo
words then females do, this may be due to the language that females have
inherited or because of the social expectations of women in society to act in a
more ‘ladylike’ way. If this is the case then it is clear that language still
obtains gendered stereotypes.
Deborah Cameron
argues that both men and women face certain expectations about the
appropriate mode of speech they use in order to be socially accepted into their
gender through her theory of ‘verbal hygiene’. She argues that women's verbal
conduct is significant because it shapes the way in which women behave in other
aspects other than speech. Furthermore, women have been instructed in the
'proper' ways of talking just like women are instructed on what is the 'proper'
way to dress, for example the constant pressure to use cosmetics and in other
'feminine' kinds of behaviour. The acceptance of 'proper' speech style, Cameron
describes as 'verbal hygiene'. Through her research she claims that 'verbal
hygiene' is a way to make sense of language and that it also represents an
attempt to impose order in society.
Stanley(1977) argues that women
occupy a negative semantic space because of the number of marked forms that
exist to describe female equivalents of male roles. She quotes ‘lady doctor’
and ‘female surgeon’ as well as more conventional marked forms through
affixation to claim that women are unable to move into the positive space occupied
by men because the negative conations that are fixed to majority of words
associated with women.
When taken into consideration the patriarchal nature in
which our society once was it is no surprise that many terms used to describe
an occupation or job title portray sexist attitudes. Terms such as ‘lady
doctor’, ‘male nurse’ and ‘actress’ are all marked in some way. This means that
either the gender of the individual is stated whether that is through ‘lady’ or
‘male’ or a suffix(-ette or –ess) is used to convey that it is a women who has
taken on the job role. Some people have stated that these marking items are
evidence of default assumptions that for example, all doctors are men unless
otherwise stated or that all nurses are female. It could therefore be concluded
that society is still very much naive and closed off to the fact that women can
take on the roles of men and vice versa, there shouldn’t be a negative stigma
attached.
However, some linguists argue that lexical asymmetry is the
reason for inequality within the English language. Lexical asymmetry is an
imbalance in the meanings of two ostensibly matching words, for example, man
and women should have simply opposite but equivalent meanings to one
another. However if you look at the
dictionary definitions of being manly or womanly, they carry very different
meanings. Manliness is seen as strength whereas womanliness is seen as
weakness. You can take this argument further when thinking about all the
expressions used that equate to being female with being weak, such as ‘Take it
like a man’ ‘you cry like a girl’. This male also be linked to why there are
marked and unmarked lexicals within occupation, as it is clear to see through
my research that being a woman is deemed as less respected then if you are a
man. Therefore some people within society feel the need to address the fact a
women is taking on a traditional male dominated job role, such as ‘lady
doctor’. In my opinion equality will be met when we can shake these marked
lexicals because there should be no assumption as to what gender dominates an
occupational, especially in the 21st century. It is very ironic to
me how society deems it necessary for it to be stated that it is a women if her
occupation is doctor seeing as girls are currently achieving higher results in
education.
Another area where prejudice has been noted within the
English language is in the generic usage of certain terms, such as ‘mankind’
which is supposed to represent both men and women. However when the word is
broken down it is clear to acknowledge that the lexical is only addressing one
gender because ‘male’ is referenced within the word. Further research has shown
me that pronouns are also a key feature within language as to why sexism is
still apparent. This is because some people within society, such as Simon
Hedger. He uses pronouns such as ‘he’ to represent both men and women, for
example “Each student should hand in his homework to his tutor”. His argument
is that it is ludicrous to have to use “he/she” when writing or speaking to a
group of males and females in order to prevent offence being taken.
There are alternatives to the usages of generic terms such
as ‘humankind’ instead of ‘mankind’ which are generally more inclusive and the
use of non-gender specific plural pronouns such as ‘their’ or ‘he/she’ but
people fail to use them because a sense of laziness amongst society. The
question I present is, is it worth offending people, in particular women by
carrying on the tradition of their oppression. Some may argue that this isn’t
doing the following by but failing to address half the population when speaking
I argue that it is exactly that. Overall I think that sexism is still very
current within the English language and this is going to continue without fail
unless there’s a drastic change in the language people use from marked words to
the derogation of words. The next generations need to make a conscious decision
as to whether or not they are going to continue on tradition and used certain
parts of language that oppress women.
