Adventures in Linguistic Sexism

...

---------------------------------------------------------------

LINGUISTIC SEXISM 6

Section Two: Gendered Language

Linguistic sexism, commonly referred to as “gendered language,” furthers patriarchy and makes it harder for women to become independent beings (Amare, 2007, p. 165). An inclusive definition of linguistic sexism, “language that is supposed to include all people, but, unintentionally or not excludes a gender,” asserts all genders may receive harms from this kind of language (Nneka, 2012, p. 3). While all groups have potential for harm, typically women find themselves disproportionately harmed by linguistic sexism (Maryann, 1983, p. 184). Most of the time, gendered language proves unnecessary, however many still use it despite the negative connotations it holds for women (Maryann, 1983, p. 184). Linguistic sexism, while generally broad, can break down into small subcategories: stereotypes, marked terms, sex-paired words, gendered titles, male generics, and generic pronouns.

The first category, stereotyping, tackles assumptions about individual people, primarily in the workplace. The job market tends to stereotype certain people and claim them fit for certain job on the basis of their gender only, regardless of other qualifications (Nneka, 2012, p. 4). Such job stereotyping includes professions such as nursing, coaching and teaching. When one looks at the former list, it proves quite easy to determine which gender “fits” which job: female nurses, male coaches, and female teachers (Nneka, 2012, p. 4). One may not think about it, however stereotyping people based solely off their gender perpetuates sexism in the community. American society tends to view work this way in order to segregate the “male” jobs from the “female” jobs (Nneka, 2012, p. 4). In society’s eyes, each gender must stick to its stereotypical job or the world might explode.

Assuming an individual does break these gender binaries, they would then have to break through yet another layer of linguistic sexism known as marked terms. Gender marking occurs when certain activities become labeled “male” or “female” unnecessarily (Nneka, 2012, p. 9).

LINGUISTIC SEXISM 7

Looking back to the definition of linguistic sexism, gender marking fits the bill like a glove. By marking something as “male” or “female” the opposite gender gets the message they should not participate in said activity. Typically male forms hold their position as the unmarked term while female forms become “marked (Nneka, 2012, p. 9).” For example society has created terms such as “female doctor,” “women’s basketball,” and “female officer.” While the vast majority of marked terms disadvantage females, examples of male marked terms do exist, take “male nurse” for example. Marking specific terms does not make sense, especially because both parties involved participate in the exact same thing only with their respective gender categories. Splitting groups based on gender has dangerous tendencies as society at large usually values male work more than female work, regardless of the fact they do the same thing (Nneka, 2012, p. 9).

Along the same lines of stereotyping and gender marking comes another problematic tendency, sex-pairing words. This problem, mainly found in the English language, perpetuates linguistic sexism by claiming male and female forms of the same word mean different things (Nneka, 2012, p. 9). Men’s terms often have positive connotations, however women’s terms tend to lean towards negativity (Nneka, 2012, p. 9). For example, take the terms bachelor/spinster and governor/governess. With the bachelor/spinster dichotomy, both supposedly mark unmarried individuals of different sexes. When broken down further, the men’s term bachelor became synonymous with a free, nonchalant individual, while the female term spinster became the insult of choice to throw at unmarried women that “could not find a husband” (Nneka, 2012, p. 9). The governor/governess example holds more explicit sexist connotations. While the male term governor means a male that rules over a group of people, the female term governess means a female live-in maid that teaches children for other families (Nneka, 2012, p. 10). The terms, semantically identical, hold very different meanings when put into context due to deeply rooted

LINGUISTIC SEXISM 8

linguistic sexism (Nneka, 2012, p. 10). Historically, female terms that started off as equal to their male counterparts in meaning slowly started to negatively devolve until they digressed to the point of insult. According to many authors, the reason for the negative connotations, the attempts of males to maintain their supremacy, proves very obvious (Nneka, 2012, p. 10).

Yet another problem with language, titles whether marital or otherwise, tends to label women according to their status. Pre-marriage, two forms exist for women based on age: Miss and Ma’am. The difference of age-based titles does not exist for males; only Sir exists for them (Nneka, 2012, p. 12). Post-marriage the woman loses her last name and thus her identity marker. Instead of being referred to as her own entity, often she finds herself referred to as just the “Mrs.” (Nneka, 2012, p. 12). This devalues women to a certain extent, implying that acknowledging them individually many not prove important or worthwhile (Nneka, 2012, p. 13). Another private issue many do not wish others to know, but women have little choice in, marital status, often comes to light through titles. A male identified as “Mr.” may or may not have a spouse, but “Miss” clearly does not and “Mrs.” clearly does (Nneka, 2012, p. 13). Ms., originally created to hide the marital status of a female should she so choose, has devolved into yet another term for an unmarried female (Nneka, 2012, p. 13). Through titles, a common theme comes to light: women do not have the independence men have. They define themselves through their proximity to the men in their lives, essentially assigning their worth based off of whether or not they were attached to one (Nneka, 2012, p. 13).

One of the more controversial points of linguistic sexism, male generics, tends to raise a few eyebrows. Supposedly, the male generic applies to three different groups: the male gender, a singular human, and humankind in general (Nneka, 2012, p. 11). Many advocates of gender-neutral language claim the use of male generics excludes the feminine voice from discussion (Martyna, 1980, p. 10). Opponents, however, argue that the intent of gendered language

LINGUISTIC