Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 23. September 17 1979

Linguistic Chauvinism?

Linguistic Chauvinism?

"Man" embraces "woman" as the old chestnut goes. But women are not 50 comfortable within his embrace as they once were. Despite the assurances of lexicographers that "man" may be safely used to refer to the human species as a whole, there is evidence of an increasing reluctance to accept terms such as "mankind", "Man-made" and chairman" as generic of sexually neutral words, they are now often regarded as imappropriate words to use in referring to women. Instead words such as "chairperson" and "spokesperson" have been coined to replace the now uncomfortably ambiguous terms involving "—man".

But these new words are still not widely used, and they are certainly not "neutral" in any sense. Have you ever heard a man seriously referred to as the chairperson? Even Ms. is not popular, although it not only avoids defining a woman in terms of her marital status, but also offers an escape route in cases of doubt.

New terms, such as these, arouse antagonism among many section of the community. As well as "tampering with the language", they derive from a social movement which frequently inspires fear and distrust. In the are of grammar opposition to change becomes even stronger. But why "he" encompass both sexes? Could the reason be that we live in a male-dominated culture? Suggested alternatives such as "shim", "thon", "hiser", "hesh" and "co" have aroused reaction ranging from incredulous laughter to virulent hostility. Is it so outrageous to suggest, however, that "s/he" is a genuine alternative in writing? And "their" could often be used in speech. "Everybody must bring their own book" is only regarded as ungramatical because our pedants agree to label it so.

The connotative meanings or associations of words are even more vulnerable to accusation of sexual bias. The words and phrases used to describe women often convey weakness eg. chick, kitten, babe, trivality eg. doll, a bit of fluff/skirt and inferiority eg just a housewife/mother/woman. They are less general eg womankind vs. mankind and less powerful and prestigious. Compare "prince", "lord", "king" and "father" used to refer to a male God, with "queen", "madam" and "lady" which have all developed negative meanings in addition to their core meanings.

Many such words save acquired derogatory sexual connotations. Compare "mistress" and "master"; "She's a professional" and "he's a professional". And many involve the use of demeaning food and animal imagery eg tart, crumpet, dish; bitch, goose, cow.

Is it worth fighting the apparent sexism which is so deeply entrenched in our language that we are often unconscious of it? Surely language simply reflects the communities' values and attitudes; it cannot constrain our thinking or behaviour. Changing our language will not alter the status of women. On the other hand language is a form of behaviour and, as a relatively conservative force, it can be seen as transmitting and maintaining male dominance, as well as simply reflecting it. If so language could act to reinforce women's inferior status and encourage us to think in stereotyped ways. Psychological research, for example, has demonstrated that people tend to form male rather than female mental images for all the nouns in a sentence like "The dog is a man's best friend".

Certainly fighting sexist terminology along will not change women's status. But it may perhaps contribute to the battle by raising a few female and male consciousnesses. Already people feel less confident about using derogatory terms to describe women. Some are even prepared to make the effort to avoid using blatantly sexist terminology in the speech and writing. When you hear "chairperson" used to describe a man without any accompanying sniggers (men don't giggle!) you will know things are improving.