Is the
English language inherently sexist?
I think that over the years the English language has
definitely become more sexist. Many meanings for words have changed to be aimed
at a specific gender, and they have adapted to a much more critical and sexist
society.
Sex is the biological difference between men and women.
Gender is the cultural expectations and understandings ascribed to sex (men and
women); the differences in behaviour and roles that are a result of societal expectations.
Gender is what a person can be discriminated against. This can be seen through
many practices and theories. Let’s look at some every day vocabulary that have
male and female connotations and reasons behind this. A cake is something that
everyone eats, however we would associate the word with a female because cakes
are sweet and fluffy and sugary, all of which are expectations of
characteristics that a girl should have. On the contrary, a beer is something
that an adult of any gender can enjoy, however it has connotations of burping
and geezers and getting smashed, which is all hard core things that are associated
with the male species. However, when the word cake is used for a male, it would
be that he stereotypically “wolfed” it down, and vice versa a woman would
stereotypically “sip” a beer.
There are many theories and ideas towards sexism in the
English language. Julia Stanley is a sociolinguist who came up with the theory
that there are 200 sexually promiscuous words aimed at woman and only 20 aimed
at men. This suggests that women can be degraded more than men. It also
suggests that if a woman has sex it is more outrageous and unacceptable that if
a man has sex. For example, the word if a man has sex they get praise
from their friends and get a ‘jack-the-lad’ reputation because a man is
stereotypically meant to go out, drink loads, pull birds and have loads of sex
( Julia Stanley’s views). However, if a woman has sex, she will get name called
and bad reputation because she is stereotypically expected to stay an innocent
virgin until she is in a loving relationship.
Another theorist
that looked into the sexism in the English language was Sarah Mills who wrote
the third wave feminist linguistics. “This paper critically examines Third Wave
feminist linguistics, a form of anti-essentialist analysis which challenges
Second Wave feminist linguistics' analysis of the language of women and men as
homogeneous groups. Rather than assuming
that men and women necessarily speak in different ways, men being direct and
forceful, women being hesitant, polite and apologetic, a Third Wave feminist
linguistics analyses the complex negotiations undertaken by women and men with gendered domains (those
sets of linguistic routines or contexts which appear to be gendered, for
example public speaking, intimate
conversation), and gendered stereotypes
of what it is assumed that women and men should do (that is, women should be
co-operative, men should be
competitive). In this way, Third Wave feminist analysis makes it possible to
analyse the language use of women and men, without assuming that all women are
powerless, all males are powerful, or that gender always makes a difference.
Thus Third Wave Feminist linguistics examines, for example, the language of
women who adopt primarily masculine forms of speaking in the public sphere.
However, rather than just focusing on the individual, this form of analysis
also examines the role of context and
social forces on the individual, in that these ways of speaking may be judged
by others as incompetent, aggressive, unprofessional and unfeminine. Third Wave
feminist linguistics is therefore concerned with moving the analysis of gender
and language away from the individual alone towards an analysis of the
individual in relation to social groups who judge their linguistic behaviour
and also in relation to hypothesised gendered stereotypes. However, this
article does not wholeheartedly advocate the adoption of a Third Wave feminist
perspective. It seems that within this type of analysis sexism becomes
difficult to analyse or challenge, and this I suggest that rather than seeing
Second and Third Wave feminist linguistics as chronological, they need to be
seen more as approaches which may be more or less appropriate depending on the
context and social situation. In the case of sexism, for certain types of
sediment sexism a Second Wave feminist approach is more applicable, whereas in
others a more locally-oriented and context-specific Third Wave approach is
preferable. Thus Second Wave feminism needs to be integrated into Third Wave
feminist linguistics, so that both local and global issues can be addressed.”
Deborah Cameron says that wherever and whenever the
matter has been investigated, men and women face normative expectations about
the appropriate mode of speech for their gender. Women's verbal conduct is
important in many cultures; women have been instructed in the proper ways of
talking just as they have been instructed in the proper ways of dressing, in
the use of cosmetics, and in other “feminine” kinds of behaviour. This
acceptance of a “proper” speech style, Cameron describes (in her 1995 book of
the same name) as “verbal hygiene”.
Cameron does not condemn verbal hygiene, as misguided. She finds
specific examples of verbal hygiene in the regulation of '"style" by
editors, the teaching of English grammar in schools, politically correct
language and the advice to women on how they can speak more effectively. In
each case Deborah Cameron claims that verbal hygiene is a way to make sense of
language, and that it also represents a symbolic attempt to impose order on the
social world. For an interesting and provocative comment on Cameron's ideas,
you might consider this from Kate Burridge, in Political correctness: euphemism with
attitude.
Not
everyone shares my view of PC language. Deborah Cameron (in Verbal Hygiene
1995) prefers not to describe it as euphemism, arguing there is more to
political correctness than just “sensitivity”. A term like “sex worker” is not
simply a positive expression for tabooed “prostitute”, but deliberately
highlights certain aspects of this group's identity. PC language is itself a
form of public action by drawing attention to form, it forces us to sit up and
take notice. Euphemisms are certainly motivated by the desire not to be
offensive, but they are more than just “linguistic fig leaves”. They can be
deliberately provocative too. Think of political allegories like George
Orwell's Animal Farm. One of the reasons why such texts are so successful is
that they exploit euphemisms to publicly expound taboo topics, while at the
same time pretending to disguise that purpose. Like any tease, such disguise
may itself be titillating.