Sexist Language and Its Harm to Both Women and Men

Introduction: Words Do Real Harm

The old saying that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" has been repeated to us since childhood. Yet a good many of us would most likely have preferred the sticks and stones, because physical injuries often heal far more quickly and far more effectively than psychological ones.

And yet, even as we must all acknowledge the basic principle that words can do real harm, many people continue to insist that sexist language is a trivial concern. This paper looks at the reasons why it is important to be careful about the language we use. It is all too easy for opponents of care in language to dismiss concerns about bias as "political correctness." But it is important that the rest of us insist that "political correctness" can be viewed another way: as basic courtesy and civility.

Because language is one of the most powerful forces there is, anyone who is concerned with issues of equity in society must be concerned with issues of fairness in language. One of the basic principles of feminism is that society has been constructed with a bias that favors males; one of the basic principles of feminists who are concerned with language is that this bias can be located in the language itself.

The Generic 'Man' and the Racist Language Analogy

We may begin our examination of sexist language with an anecdote and an analogy. The first comes from a high school classroom, where one teacher — a man — would always scoff at requests by students that he not use biased language.

"I never feel left out when people talk about 'men' as meaning all of humanity," he would say. "I know that they're talking about the species as a whole, not just people with Y chromosomes."

He was, it should be noted, speaking without any apparent irony. He never seemed able to appreciate the fact that while he might not feel left out, women and girls would.

What is especially striking about the subject of sexist speech is that people do not tend to make the analogy to racist speech. No one in the 21st century would ever think that "white people" really meant all humans. And yet many people insist that "men" really means men and women.

The following argument summarizes this lack of sensitivity to the fact that while people have used "men" for many years as a blanket term for the species, this in and of itself does not mean that the usage is not sexist:

First of all, the theory of "sexist language" seems to say that words cannot have more than one meaning: if "man" and "he" in some usage mean males, then they cannot mean both males and females in other usage (i.e., nouns and pronouns can have both masculine and common gender). This view is absurd enough that there is usually a more subtle take on it: that the use of "man" or "he" to refer to males and to both males and females means that maleness is more fundamental than femaleness, "subordinating" femaleness to maleness, just as in the Book of Genesis the first woman, Eve, is created from Adam's rib for the purpose of being his companion.

Certainly it is true that words can have more than one meaning. And all of those meanings can be sexist.

The real tragedy that underscores the use of sexist terms is that they not only harm women's chances, but they also limit the agency of men. No one in a society is left undamaged when the paths of our lives are determined not by our particular skills or predilections, but rather by the amount of melanin we have or whether or not we possess two X chromosomes.

Semantic Derogation: When Words for Women Turn Negative

While this paper began by discussing particular linguistic uses — specifically the generic "man" to include all humans — the sexism in language in fact runs much deeper than vocabulary choices. If vocabulary were the only issue, language would be relatively easy to purge of sexism. But the bias against women in language, which also serves to cripple men by assigning them to traditional masculine roles whether they would like to occupy them or not, runs much deeper.

Sexist attitudes about women — and men, for sexism includes any attitude that assumes a person's biological sex is more important than their individual talents and inclinations — lie far deeper than surface vocabulary. We will examine two deeper levels of sexism in language beyond the simple exclusion discussed above.

The first of these — which we may metaphorically place one level beneath the kind of linguistic exclusion that claims "men" means "people" — is a semantic level of language that assigns a pejorative meaning to terms applied to women when analogous terms applied to men are neutral or complimentary. As scholar Muriel Schulz observed:

It was not mere coincidence that there were more positive words for males in the language, nor was it an accident that there were so many negative words for females with no semantic equivalent for males. These manifestations of a patriarchal order were rule-governed, and the rule is that words which are marked for females, which are used in association with females, become "pejorated." Because, irrespective of origin or intent, words which are marked female are marked negative, Schulz referred to the systematic, semantic derogation of women. (Cameron 17)

An example of this phenomenon may help make it clearer. A spinster, while legally the equivalent of a bachelor, is in no way considered a cultural equivalent. We all "know" that spinsters — or old maids — never married because they are too ugly, or are frigid, or perhaps are lesbians. The word never carries the connotation of a woman who has chosen not to marry, a woman who has freely chosen to be single.

Compare this to the word "bachelor," which is almost necessarily preceded by "swinging," even though that adjective is now nearly entirely passé. Bachelors, we all "know," are single by choice. They are probably attractive and financially well off. They are certainly sexually active — unlike the old maid, who is probably still a virgin.

Such social stereotypes, embedded in and reinforced by language, do more damage to women than to men, but they do harm to both. Women who are single are scorned when they instead deserve sympathy (if they wish to be with a partner and are not) or admiration (for bucking social pressures and making their own way in the world). Men who are single are celebrated when they, too, may deserve sympathy or admiration for exactly the same reasons. In a situation where men and women should be treated equally, our language pushes us toward treating them very differently indeed.

Conclusion: Heroes, Heroines, and the Work Ahead

In closing, we may turn to one of the "great male writers" of the English language — for if Jane Austen is always designated as a "great female writer," then her male colleagues should also be identified by gender — Charles Dickens.

In the opening of his novel David Copperfield, the male narrator wonders aloud whether he shall be the hero of his own life. It is one of the most evocative opening lines of any English novel, staying with us long after much of the plot's more extravagant episodes fade from memory.

The reason it feels so especially poignant is that we all wish to be the heroes of our own lives. But the restrictions of language — which reinforce and reproduce the strictures that exist in other parts of society — make this very difficult to do.

This is especially true for women, for heroines are not the same as heroes. Until they are, there is much work to be done for all of us — future heroes and heroines both.

References

Cameron, D. (1990). The feminist critique of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Spender, D. (1985). Man-made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: William Morrow.