Language's role in sustaining gender inequality: A critical analysis

Language's Role In Sustaining Inequality Between The Sexes

Although it is disputed whether language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language, language does play a part in sexism (Wikipedia). Given that the development of society has gone hand in hand with the development of language, it is unlikely that the causation will ever be determined. However, whether language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language, it is clear that language plays a key role in sustaining inequality between the sexes.

At its most basic, language is a system of symbols used by human beings to communicate with each other. However, language is not simply how humans communicate with one another, but also how humans communicate within themselves. Therefore, if language is sexist, then the actions, and even the thoughts, that it describes are sexist (West). For example, words with gender-based connotations imply that the attributes necessary to perform the duties related to those words are limited to only one gender (West).

Language perpetuates inequality in a variety of manners. The most dramatic example of language-based sexism is when gender or sex related words are used in a pejorative manner. Less obviously sexist is when gender-linked words are used to reinforce the idea that masculinity is superior to femininity. Furthermore, there are certain gender-neutral words that have come to be so linked with one sex or another that their use to describe a person of the other gender is preceded by a gender designation. Language also reveals how pairs of words that should be equivalent across genders have lesser connotations for the feminine part of the pair. Furthermore, the gender bias in terminology associated with leaders and rulers perpetuates a bias towards male leadership. The use of male pronouns and nouns to describe people of both sexes tends to marginalize the existence of women in society. Additionally, the manner in which married women and men are referred to, both in titles and in the verbs associated with marriage reveal a society biased towards the idea of women as passive or as property. Even the names given to male and female children demonstrate that men are expected to be strong and virtuous, while women are expected to be decorative and pretty. In addition, grown women are referred to as girls or ladies, rather than as women. Furthermore, the metaphors that are associated with men and women show a tendency to describe men as more substantive and stronger than women. Finally, the sexualizing of women's body parts is rampant in language, with body parts being used in manners wholly inconsistent with their actual use or designation. While any one of these trends in language, on its own, might not do much to foster inequality of the sexes, combined they help shape and create, and, in turn, are shaped and created by, a society that still regards women as less than men.

Gender-based words also play a role in maintaining sexual inequality when used in an insulting manner. For example, some of the most pejorative insults in the English language consist of calling a person a derogatory term for a vagina. Not only is the "p" word one of the ultimate insults that a person can levy towards a man, it has also become synonymous with an absolute lack of courage. Given that women use their vaginas to bring forth life, in what is almost universally recognized as an extremely painful process, the fact that a euphemism for the word "vagina" has become synonymous with the word "coward" indicates how language helps perpetuate sexual inequality.

Furthermore, not only women's body parts, but the very nouns used to designate a female human, are used as insults. For example, the words, "girl" and "lady" are used as labels of inferiority when applied to both men and women, and to "make a man" out of someone is to make them more or better (Bartlett). It is an insult to tell someone, even a woman that she throws like a girl or runs like a girl. It is also an insult to call a person of either sex a "sissy," even though that word was derived from sister (Nilsen). Furthermore, while never-married women are referred to pejoratively as old maids, so are "pretentious and fussy old men" (Nilsen).

The use of the feminine as an insult is hardly something new. In fact, not even goddesses were immune from the demonizing or trivializing of the feminine. While Mars spawned the positive adjective "martial," Venus has the dubious honor of being the root of the word "venereal," as in "venereal disease."

Not only are feminine nouns and pronouns used in an insulting manner, but masculine words have positive denotations rarely associated with feminine words. The word "womanly" is defined as "having qualities generally associated with a woman," or "being appropriate in character to a woman" (Mish). In contrast, the word "manly" is defined as "strong" and "virile." A little girl who is considered unusually active is referred to as a "tomboy." Furthermore:

When a little girl is told to be a lady, she is being told to sit with her knees together and to be quiet and dainty. But when a little boy is told to be a man he is told to be noble, strong, and virtuous- to have all the qualities that the speaker looks on as desirable. The concept of manliness has such positive connotations that it used to be a compliment to call someone a he-man, to say that he was doubly a man (Nilsen).

Today, the term "manly-man" is still used in a complimentary manner.

Furthermore, some gender-neutral nouns have become so-associated with one gender or another that, when used to designate someone of the opposite gender, they are preceded by a designation of female or male. An example of this is the word "prostitute." While the word "prostitute" can be used to define either men or women who engage in sex for money, one frequently hears the phrase "male prostitute," but never the phrase "female prostitute." Likewise, the word "whore," while technically defining a person of either gender who engages in sex for money, is used almost exclusively to describe women. Both "prostitute" and "whore" have extremely pejorative connotations. In contrast, the term "gigolo," which defines "a man supported by a woman usually in return for his attentions" does not have the pejorative connotation of either "prostitute" or "whore" (Mish). In addition to its less-negative connotation, the word "gigolo" differs significantly from "prostitute" or "whore" in another manner; unlike the other two words, it can only be used to describe a person of one gender.

Furthermore, pairs of words that one might assume would have similar meanings, regardless of gender, are frequently associated with sexuality. While "a callboy is the person who calls actors when it is time for them to go on stage," "a call girl is a prostitute" (Nilsen). While a master is someone who has perfected a certain skill, such as a chess master, the term "mistress" is most commonly used to describe a woman having an affair with a married man. Furthermore, the terms sir and madam, while initially used to indicate people of the same rank, but different genders, have come to have vastly different connotations. "Sir is a term of respect, while madam has acquired the specialized meaning of a brothel manager" (Nilsen). One of the more dramatic examples of this phenomenon is the difference in the connotations between the words "wizard" and "witch." While both words refer to magic users and would seem to imply a superior knowledge, the word "witch" has come to be used very negatively to describe women with bad personalities or cruel temperaments, while the term "wizard" or "wiz" is used to describe someone that excels in a certain area, such as a "math wiz" or a "science wiz."

It is not surprising that sexual inequality is revealed most dramatically in the words used to describe sex or gender. What is surprising is how pervasive gender-bias is in language terms that appear to have little to do with sex or gender. For example, people give little thought to the use of the word "kingdom" to describe a country ruled by royalty, even when the ruler is a queen (Nilsen). In fact, few people seem to question the idea that a king marries a woman who becomes a queen, whereas a queen marries a man who becomes, at best, a prince. A woman who is the rightful heir to the throne has the exact same title as a woman who marries an heir to the throne. However, a man who marries the queen can never attain the title of king. Furthermore, all of the titles given to royalty show how sexual inequality cuts both ways by demonstrating that males can be disadvantaged by the assumption that they will be the more powerful member of a pair (Nilsen). When a man holds a title, his wife is automatically given the female equivalent of that title. In contrast, when a woman holds a royal title, her husband is not automatically given the male equivalent of that title (Nilsen).

Royals are not the only world leaders and rulers that are described by sexist language. The President of the United States is married to the First Lady, but there is no equivalent title for a male spouse should a woman be elected President. Furthermore, Americans elect Congressmen to represent them in the House and the Senate, regardless of the actual gender of the elected official. Americans have not cornered the market on sexist leadership. When Margaret Thatcher was the highest elected official of Great Britain, and Indira Gandhi the highest elected official of India, both women were referred to as Prime Ministers, even though the word "minister" has traditionally been used to designate males.

Language does not sustain inequality only by attaching different meanings to male and female words. "Traditional language fails to reflect the presence of women in society adequately" (Non-Sexist). The use of gender-specific pronouns or gender-specific nouns to refer to all people marginalizes women and creates the impression of a male-dominated society. Examples of words that marginalize are: fireman, policeman, and craftsmen. The use of those words implies that women cannot fight fighters, fight crimes, or craft goods.

One of the most dramatic ways that language perpetuates inequality between the sexes is in the use of Miss and Mrs. For unmarried and married women. A woman's title does more than designate her gender; it gives the world her marital status. In contrast, the title Mr. only indicates to someone that they are talking to a man. Furthermore, the addition of the title Ms. has not taken away those designations. Although Ms. was meant to replace both Miss and Mrs. And become the generic title for a woman, it has come to be synonymous with an older unmarried woman. While Mr. Brad Jones can refer to any man, of any marital status and age, Miss Barbara Jones generally refers to an unmarried younger woman, Ms. Barbara Jones to an older, unmarried woman, and Mrs. Barbara Jones of Mrs. Brad Jones to a married woman.

Titles are not the only manner in which language perpetuates gender equality in regards to the marital relationship. Many married couples are still pronounced "man and wife," harking back to the days when a wife was considered the property of her husband. In fact, not long ago, married women were considered legal nonentities, and the use of the term wife signified that a woman had entered a term of coverture and was unable to enter into binding legal contracts. While those laws are no longer in existence, the continued use of phrases such as "man and wife" demonstrates that society has not moved far beyond the idea of women as property.

In addition to the titles given to married men and women, "the grammar used in talking or writing about weddings" perpetuates inequality (Nilsen). In the language of marriage, women are given a passive role. A man takes a wife, while a woman becomes a bride. Brides are given away by their families, whereas no one gives away the groom. In contrast, the groom is viewed as coming freely into a marriage. Finally, language and culture combine to transform Miss Barbara Smith into Mrs. Barbara Jones, or even Mrs. Bradley Jones when she marries Mr. Bradley Jones.

Actually, a woman's taking of her husband's name after marriage is only one of the ways that naming practices reflect a language-based gender bias. Looking at "the differences between male and female names in a culture" reveals the different expectations for children of either gender. Female names traditionally evoke thoughts of small or sweet items, while males are frequently given names with meanings of power and strength (Nilsen).

In addition to individual names, groups of women are given diminutive designations. Quite frequently, a group of women is referred to as a group of girls, ladies, or a bunch of chicks. A boss of either sex may refer to the woman working for him or her as "my girl," rather than referring to the employee by name or job description, as they would with a man.

Language encompasses more than just the use actual words used to describe things or ideas. Language also encompasses more complex ideas like metaphors. Examining the use of metaphors reveals how ingrained male-bias is in our society. People have traditionally been described with the use of animal metaphors. Men are referred to as strong animals: wolves, studs, bucks. In contrast, women are referred to as passive or harmless animals: bunnies, kittens, beavers, or chicks (Nilsen). Even animals with negative connotations are divided among gender lines. Strong animals like vultures, rats, jackasses, and bulls are used to describe men (Nilsen). "Negative metaphors used with women are based on smaller animals" such as catty, mousy, or vixen (Nilsen). Somehow, even metaphors that derive from the same animal are given different meanings depending on the sex described. Both "shrew" and "shrewd" derive from the shrew. However, the term "shrew" is exclusively used to refer to women and refers to a woman who is unpleasant and grating. In contrast, the term shrewd can be used to describe people of both sexes and is a complimentary term meaning that someone is sharp or savvy.

In addition to being compared to animals, women have traditionally been described using food metaphors. Women are referred to as honey, sugar, sweets. A good looking woman is a dish or a hot tomato. A sweet woman is a peach. In contrast, to call a man a fruit is to question his masculinity (Nilsen). In contrast, when food is used as a metaphor for a man, the food is more substantive than that used to describe a woman. A woman's pin-up picture is cheesecake, while a man's pin-up is beefcake (Nilsen).