English: A Sexist Language?

[AntiochusIII]

Actually, I would say that Japanese is actually more formal than English in many ways, and the expression of gender is quite more relevant than English. Then again, the concern about gender-specific in Japanese is only a small part of an entire language quite fixated on proper uses of suffixes that are obscure to foreigners. The significance of the many forms of "you," and who would use it how and when, in which gender and social position come into play; the suffixes -san, -kun, -chan, -sama, -sensei, and others and their specific uses; these alone would give any language learners a headache, and these are just starting points.

Japanese is a good demonstration to how language reflects culture, so is English; however, it would be quite a stretch to assume that the reverse is true, primarily, which is where the argument truly falls apart.

I'd argue that her editorial isn't the best example of where feminism should throw its efforts upon. Pure semantics are worthless in face of the practical reality; and her demands are outright unrealistic.

I still maintain that this is just a rant.

[L'Impresario]

Then again, the concern about gender-specific in Japanese is only a small part of an entire language quite fixated on proper uses of suffixes that are obscure to foreigners.

Not really, try messing up -kanaa and -kashira and you 'll raise a few eyebrows even from completely non-pedantic persons.

Japanese is a good demonstration to how language reflects culture, so is English; however, it would be quite a stretch to assume that the reverse is true, primarily, which is where the argument truly falls apart.

The question of culture and language is not easily dismissible, and it brings into the forefront philosophical, psychoanalytical and anthrolopological motifs. At the same time, the issue of sexism not only appears as a manifestation of certain strictly verbal elements and the vocabulary of a language, but it seems to have a quality of its own in a more sociolinguistic context. So in some cultures women are expected to follow certain norms, and what would be a perfectly normal pattern of expression for a male becomes annoying or even totally unacceptable for a female. Naturally, some inherent differences between the genders will be reflected in such situations, but their extent is up to debate, and here we have the eternal debate of nature or nurture.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Naturally, some inherent differences between the genders will be reflected in such situations, but their extent is up to debate, and here we have the eternal debate of nature or nurture.

Very few, if indeed any physical differences between the sexes justify different treatment. If we take a the statement in the original post:

I hate to burst your bubble...but women are, physically, the weaker sex.

If we look at averages, this is true, but it does not mean that all women are weaker than all men. Thus any decision which differentiates between men or women on the basis that women are weaker than men is both unwise and unfair to strong women and weak men. Decisions where strength is relevant should be based on strength alone.

[yesdachi]

I say we burn our trousers in protest!

I should have taken mine off first.

It is not the language that is sexist it is how it is used. The author should have attacked a specific person (grade school jock/bully?) or group (men who think girls are prettier than her?) rather than the entire language. Its like saying guns kill people when it’s really people using them who kill people. Blaming a tool because she is ticked at someone is a cop-out, if she is pissed at someone (ex-boyfriend?) maybe she should confront that person (her dad maybe?) rather than lash out at all men and the language our mom’s taught them.


Geek reference – I believe all D&D books refer to the player/character as a female.

[Husar]

I hate to burst your bubble...but women are, physically, the weaker sex.

Also, I lately noticed a sign at a supermarket saying something about "Kassiererin", the german female form of cashier, should the guy who served me at the cass feel opressed now???
He didn't look like he had a ny problem with it.

[Tachikaze]

Also, I lately noticed a sign at a supermarket saying something about "Kassiererin", the german female form of cashier, should the guy who served me at the cass feel opressed now???
He didn't look like he had a ny problem with it.

Maybe if it happened to him everyday, everywhere he went, all through his life, he would get tired of it. Suffering through one instance doesn't put him on par with what females go through.

[Tachikaze]

It is not the language that is sexist it is how it is used. The author should have attacked a specific person (grade school jock/bully?) or group (men who think girls are prettier than her?) rather than the entire language. Its like saying guns kill people when it’s really people using them who kill people. Blaming a tool because she is ticked at someone is a cop-out, if she is pissed at someone (ex-boyfriend?) maybe she should confront that person (her dad maybe?) rather than lash out at all men and the language our mom’s taught them.

Language can't be separated from use. Use is language. Conversely, what is not used is not language.

Language is a big part of what determines how people think. If that were not true, politicians and commercial advertizing wouldn't study the convincing (even brainwashing) effects of language so much. If someone hears something enough, they will believe it.

Females are subtly positioned into an inferior position to males by the small elements of language that accumulate over time. They are constantly reminded of their inferior position. This is every bit as effective as making laws that lower women's status. In fact, it is even more effective, since it also convinces the women themselves that they are inferior.

The English language portrays man as the norm and woman as secondary. Even this small nuance puts men in the center and women on the periphery.

It's kind of funny how much men resist altering the language to be more neutral. If they truly feel the two genders are equal, why don't they show it in their language?

[yesdachi]

Language can't be separated from use. Use is language. Conversely, what is not used is not language.

Language is a big part of what determines how people think. If that were not true, politicians and commercial advertizing wouldn't study the convincing (even brainwashing) effects of language so much. If someone hears something enough, they will believe it.

Females are subtly positioned into an inferior position to males by the small elements of language that accumulate over time. They are constantly reminded of their inferior position. This is every bit as effective as making laws that lower women's status. In fact, it is even more effective, since it also convinces the women themselves that they are inferior.

The English language portrays man as the norm and woman as secondary. Even this small nuance puts men in the center and women on the periphery.

It's kind of funny how much men resist altering the language to be more neutral. If they truly feel the two genders are equal, why don't they show it in their language?

Language has been used for many different purposes and regrettably for women who care, the English language has been used most commonly for purposes towards men. Men who have traditionally been the ones responsible for making purchases, being educated, reading newspapers and in general just being out in public. As women’s roles change from Suzy homemaker to more outside the home roles where they become more of a consumer or active part of society so to will the language change to accommodate them. Although there are fewer men than women, men are still the decision makers in most financial matters around the home and in business. When language is being used it is still usually being used towards men.

You said it yourself that advertisers and politicians study the convincing effects of language and obviously they have concluded that they should still be directing their words at men. It is just the way the world is today, women are (more considerately that in the past) positioned as less important to men but we are already seeing that change especially over the last few years with advertising and programming on TV becoming more female friendly (a woman president on TV and network TV loosing Monday Night Football to ESPN due to ratings). It is a slow change that may not ever see women as equal despite all the laws and political correctness efforts but if society changes and elevates women to an equal status to men we will know by listening to advertisers or when salesmen stop talking to men first or servers at restaurants stop bringing the bill to the men.

Women have been second chair to men since recorded time and just because they have started to become more independent lately (relativity speaking) doesn’t mean society should misrepresent language to make a small minority of women feel equal. If more language is being directed at women, the way language is being used will reflect the change.

I stand by my comments that the language isn’t sexist but the people who use it are, and are on purpose in many cases, perhaps mot because they are sexist but because they are not addressing women.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So I guess it's up to me to disagree with everyone here and more-or-less side with the author.

First of all, language and culture are intimately intertwined. Language influences culture as much as the culture influences language. I think only a person who is determined to find fault with her writing would think she means they are completely synonomous.

She was wrong, though, when she said language was the basis for all communication.

The author never said English was more sexist than other languages. It's not important whether they are or not. The topic is English. However, it can be helpful to study other languages that have everyday examples of more gender-neutral syntax.

Japanese is, in many ways, more gender-neutral than English. Pronouns may change with the gender of the speaker (usually due more to the level of politeness than prescribed pronouns for man and women), but not the gender of the subject or objects of their sentence. Hito and kanojo are used for "person" and "she or he", respectively, regardless of gender. San is used where English-speakers say "missus", "mister", "miss", or "ms". The suffix -jin (added where English adds "-man") is gender-neutral.

English does need a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. They works pretty well, especially when the number of people is not important. I hate "he/she" or "he or she". Another one, "s/he" works OK in writing, but not in speech.

I wish also that the words man and human were reversed. Then man would be the root of both woman (female man) and human (male man--not mailman). The WO prefix would be for females, the HU prefix for males.

The author didn't mention that on forms the male checkbox is almost always listed before the female one. Why? F comes before M in the alphabet.

Men did standardize English, not in speech, but on paper. Almost all writers during the early development of English were men.

"Spirit of brotherhood" is an example of exclusion. If it said "spirit of sisterhood" I'll bet all you male forumers would have something to say. I don't agree with her that it excludes women from the rights provided by the Declaration.

If you need an example of how male-centered language can affect women's rights, you need not go any farther than the US Constitution. An amendment had to be made to ensure that women could vote.

"Girls" and "chicks" are, indeed, demeaning terms. I don't agree with the author that "ladies" is any worse than "gentlemen". Those two words don't carry the meanings they once did.

I think the tone some of you are using is disgusting. It's not that you have to agree with her statements, but to say that women aren't demeaned, disparaged, belittled, repressed, objectified, and ridiculed--and that language doesn't reflect that--is blind. I am shocked what I hear men say about women when women are not around (and sometimes when they are). In this day in age, I would think they have gone beyond that. I'm not talking about the criticism. Women criticize men just as much. I'm talking about the words they use to label them.

The author makes several good points, even if many of them are rather cliché. Some of you just want to attack her. Maybe you are being defensive or insecure. Maybe she has struck a nerve. I don't know. But I think the responses help support her point about male repression or chauvinism.

Language was written the way it is by chauvinistic men sure, and women are still being repressed belittled what have you. But I don't think language today reinforces that. We say "men and women" and "boys and girls" for the same reason we say "lewis and clark" "law and order" and "nook and cranny". That's just how we've always said it. I'm sure you've said "Lewis and Clark" several times in your life, why do you insist on belittling clark? Lewis isn't more important than clark and law isn't more important than order and I couldn't define cranny if I tried. Language is somewhat arbitrary, I'm supposed to say "Tachikaze and I" instead of "Me and Tachikaze" even though they mean the same thing. You have to put one before the other though.

Telling me that whenever I refer to "mankind" or a "spirit of brotherhood" I'm trampling the rights of women is going to put me on the defensive. It's just what I was taught, when I say that I'm simply trying to communicate. That's why this is a timewaster of an issue, or at least the examples she brought up are. If she wants to denounce the use of the word slut I would be right with her; that one is used as often by women though so perhaps she doesn't have an issue with it. It's only the she/he womyn quibbling that I find silly.

[Husar]

Maybe if it happened to him everyday, everywhere he went, all through his life, he would get tired of it. Suffering through one instance doesn't put him on par with what females go through.

If women are confronted with so much suffering every day, why are many of them still pretty happy?
You sound like this is unbearable suffering, worse than slavery...
Language is changed by the people qwho use it everyday and I oppose attempts to change it by force just because someone thinks it's better that way.

[Don Corleone]

I actually think she has a valid point. Language is the abstraction by which we share our thoughts with the outside world and receive others' in return. Language does shape perception.

What I would object to is the anger, the vitriol and the assumption that there's a conspiracy afoot. Lighten up. You'll certainly steer more people in your intended direction by calmly, rationally explaining that older language reflects older thinking then jumping up and down and screaming that you're a victim of a rampant patriarchy and something so fundamental as our language must radically change immediately, to purge all hints of the evil plot.

Language and culture move like glaciers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Language and culture move like glaciers.

Not always, Don C, but I agree that you are describing the general trend.

My point of concern, which I think should be considered, is one of practicality -- a practical concern which your post touches on.

Is forcing people to change their language use going to change their thinking or the thinking of the next generation any more effectively then the changing culture itself? I am skeptical that changing the language by fiat will actually result in the desired cultural change.

I am actually fairly scrupulous about avoiding "sexist" language -- I worked and published in academe for more than a decade and you will NOT get pubbed if you write using such language -- but I always thought the concern was putting the cart before the horse. LOTS of womyn/women/XX chromosome-types were already excelling in academe when the push to change the language was made. So was changing the language changing the culture or -- as it seemed to me -- did a changed culture change the language to suit itself?

In academe, the charge was spear-headed [they'd perjuratorially refer to that phrasing as an example of phallologocetrism by the way] by radical feminists in English departments, any number of whom thought most of the writings of the great dead white guys should be tossed in favor of literature that emphasized a "diversity of voices."

Effecting cultural change is rarely as simple and never as controlled as those who seek to change it wish it could be. If it were, all of those "re-organizations" you experience at work would actually succeed instead of being ignored by people who keep doing things the way they've always done them.

[Tachikaze]

I don't have time now (time for bed!) to respond to all the posts back to me. But they are very good and intelligent. Maybe I can take this up tomorrow.

The one I will address briefly is Sasaki. I would not complain about the word order of "men and women" in a sentence. That is not important enough to worry about. I did mention male before female on forms. That does show some male bias because there is no valid reason to put male first. Alphabetical ordering would put female first. It's one of those small reminders that men are the standard.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's one of those small reminders that men are the standard.

Irrelevant but interesting point: Biologically, women are standard and men are deficient in the sense that they have an incomplete chromosome.

[naut]

so we now talk about fire-fighters instead of firemen.

I still call them firemen.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I still call them firemen.

Fine. As long as you are not telling my daughters they can't be firefighters if they want to.

[Incongruous]

Actually at our school some of the guys are getting fed up with the female orientated English programme (not the language I know), interesting no?

[Husar]

Fine. As long as you are not telling my daughters they can't be firemen if they want to.

I edited it a little bit.
I think it is rather easy, once firefighters contain more or close to 50% women, people will probably recognize and come to the conclusion that firemen might not fit anymore, thus starting to use another term. Doesn't language usually try to put reality into words? The term firemen probably comes from most of them being men for whatever reason and it should change by itself once enough people recognize that there are women doing the job.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but that's the way I see it. If we don't like the history of our language, we can just as well rewrite history books to reflect medieval women in a better way.

[Fragony]

Let's just call it men and wombmen. Problem solved.

[Red Peasant]

The feminist attacks are ideologically motivated and will only result in impoverishing the language and obscuring meaning. When that happens then it is not only wrong but wrong-headed. Changes to usage in received language should improve it not bastardize it; anything that impedes clarity and understanding in the written text should be avoided and resisted at all costs.

Languages such as Latin, Greek, German and Malay which possess a single word for 'human being' of a neutral connotation in any context are not noticeably any less sexist than speakers of, say, English and French, who lack such a word. So, I find it difficult to follow their logic.

That said, it is a good thing to be sensitive to the sensibilities of your audience and not willingly to cause offence if it can be avoided, but if the changes confuse or repel then it is best not to adopt them at all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's just call it men and wombmen. Problem solved.

Scamp.

[professorspatula]

I bet the author of that little rant about the English language uses one of those completely non-sexist women only insurance companies for her car cover.

You can find fault in anything if you try: those left-handed tin openers discriminate against the right handed majority! It seems these days more and more people have a chip on their shoulder and demand we see and act upon their issues, no matter how trivial. Of all the things to worry about and feel so strongly about when countless generations of women have just got on with things. What a waste of time and energy. Besides, if you want action, we all know you need to throw yourself under the king's horse before anyone takes notice. Writing is just rubbish! She's no women's lib hero. Waste of space really.