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.

Janet Holmes

Sexism: the exploitation of one group by another on the basis of sex. When women are discriminated against because they are women. Where women are relatively disadvantaged and men relatively advantaged because of their respective sexes. Sexism is also sex-role stereotyping; where women are portrayed as weak, 'fragile', 'indecisive', 'less intelligent' and 'without resources'. When the only roles they are seen to play are 'mother, 'housewife', 'willing servant of others', and as dependents. Sexism is as subtle as the automatic use of the male pronoun and as blatant as a rape. In all its from sexism is insidious and must constantly be fought.

Women and the Media

I'm sure you've seen her. Passive, docile, dependent, incompetent, irrational, fearful and completely unable to lead an independent life. The media seems determined to set up an image of women which comprises merely of their appearance, clothes, sexual desirability and smell. Is this really what women are or should aim to be?

In its crudest form, sexism affirms that women are either wives, mothers, housewives or sex objects. Do you get up in the morning and put on your Max Factor face — no? Then perhaps Revlon, Helena Rubenstien or Cyclax. Women seen to appear in mainly ads for personal hygeine products and products found in the kitchen and bathroom. They are usually shown inside the house or at the supermarket. Some of the New Zealand ads I have viewed with concern range from the blatantly sexist ads such as Mr Muscle, Softly — for Woollens. Brut and Danguard— deadly weapon against dandruff to the more subtle ones such as Homestead Chicken and Sunlight dishwashing liquid.

What about most TV programmes? Here she is again. Super cool, super bitch. . . super stereotype!! She invariably gets herself into trouble and male counterparts (or should it be superiors?) invariably come to the rescue, emerging as the hero.

Separate pages for women in newspapers is a blatant assumption that different sexes read different sections. Fashion, cooking, gossip and child-care features seem to be a measure of what the Press considers suitable topics for women. There may be reports on feminist politics and occasionally a feature about how women's position in society is supposedly changing. Ironic.

Sexism is obvious in the way stories are reported. Rising food prices are seen to be a burden on housewives, while rising beer prices are a blow to men. One could assume from these sort of articles that it is only women who eat and men who consume alcohol. Men are described by the Press by their occupations, women by their appearance.

Until individual men and women realistically face and understand the pressures and problems that the stereotyping of women's roles creates, we will all continue to be disadvantaged. Most media advertising manages to convey the message that if you don't conform to their opinions/advice you will be regarded in some way as a 'bad woman', be undesirable or be a social outcast. The advantages of using a certain product are greatly emphasised and are bound to involve becoming glamorous, beautiful, desirable, socially accepted or greatly admired by others.

I have yet to see the media portray women as strong-willed, mature, active, competent, reliable, independent, responsible, ingenious, brave and purposeful.

A national organisation in the USA ran an ad with a picture of a toddler. The ad read "This normal healthy baby has a handicap; she was born female."

Don't be proud to be a stereotype.

Joanne Tuffield