Do you think Language is inherently sexist?
By DoriLentrich
@DoriLentrich (1016)
United States
September 3, 2008 12:40pm CST
With all the talk about sexism in the media, I think this issue is going to become more discussed.
Taking the English language as an example, there are many instances where the words themselves show a predisposition against women. A single man is described as a "bachelor." A single woman is a "spinster." A promiscuous man is a "player," or at worst a "philanderer." The words to describe a woman, I can't even type here. Old women are hags or crones, old men are sages. There are countless other examples, but I was curious, how do people feel about these subtle distinctions?
I love language, and am not advocating a rewriting of the English language to fit some politically correct stereotype, but I think it's something that should be discussed.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@thebeaddoodler (4262)
• Lubbock, Texas
3 Sep 08
It isn't the English language that needs to be rewritten. It is our perception of it. There's no reason that spinster should carry any more stigma than bachelor. There's no reason that the words for promiscuous women should carry and more stigma than "player", "philanderer", or even "jiggalo", but our society's perception is that a promiscuous woman is BAD, and boys will be boys. Women who don't get married are somehow lacking and men who don't get married strong and independent. And as far as hags, crones and sages, there's no difference in my mind. Hags and crones have lived a long life and gathered every bit as much wisdom as sages. Why should the words carry stigma?
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
3 Sep 08
The point is, language reflects not creates our values. Change the value attached by changing the culture.
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
3 Sep 08
I don't want to rewrite the language. But if we ignore the stigma that is carried by these words, aren't we in some way perpetuating it?
Just because something shouldn't stigmatize, doesn't mean it doesn't. I agree with you, there should be no value judgment. But there is.
That's my question, is it unfairly weighted against women? And if so, does that make a woman's struggle for equality more difficult? We can't change it. But we can recognize it.
@BubblyIan (750)
•
13 Sep 08
Since the media is fundamentally projecting an anti-male view of society it is not surprising if they choose words that reflect their prejudice. I object to the implication that 'mother' is always good and 'father' inherently bad. I object to the use of the sentences like "10 people killed including 5 women and children" what were the rest? Monkeys?
I object to the continual use of the phrase 'women and children' in some kind of collective noun deliberately excluding men.
I object to Amnesty international running a campaign to stop violence aghainst "women and children" why not against men as well? When I queried this with them they said that 30% of the violence in the world was against women and children (where do they make up these figures?) - so i queried who the rest was against and why they weren't camapigning against ALL violnce - which I could associate with - I was told they thought they should start with the 'smaller' problem!
I also object to the suggestion from the media that domestic abuse is only by men against women (and children). This misinformation does not match the reality that domestic abuse is probably roughly equally practiced by both men and women. When I queried this I was told that they were starting on tackling the 'bigger' problem!
Why do we have to call the chairman of the meeting now 'chair'?
Why do we talk about "mothering sunday" but "fathers day"?
Why do the United Nations host an international days for women but not for men?
Why do the UK government have a minister for women (and children) but not for men?
Why do the UK government call their human rights department the departmenf for women and equality?
What about men?
Language is incredibly important for controlling and brainwashing and the media are experts at directing us in a particular direction - hence why I got rid of my tv and rarely watch a movie produced by Hollywood. I want to retain my ability to think for myself!
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
14 Oct 08
This confusion of 'chair' and 'chairman' is based on a misunderstanding. Many words have multiple meanings in English and 'man' is one of them.
The original meaning of 'Man' was person. Males being referred to as wapmen and women as wifmen. 'Man' of course has a second meaning, namely a male person but the two meanings should not be confused. Therefore, it is not sexist to use the term 'chairman' since here man means person.
Nor is it valid to argue that using 'man' in this manner, prioritizes males since it makes as much sense to say that retaining a prefix on 'woman' prioritizes women.
Abuses of English such as 'chair' should be avoided like the plague and a merely a symptom of ignorance.
all the best urban
2 people like this
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
19 Sep 08
You bring up and interesting counter to the point I was making. However, you are addressing the modern phenomena of villianizing (I think that's a word) men. If you look at history, women were the victims of the predjudice you are describing. Why call the chairman the chair, because a woman isn't a man. Why try to de-gender these titles, because they are no longer held by men exclusively. That isn't me being brainwashed, that's me living in the modern workforce. The issues you bring up are true. Men are victims in the world as much as women. However, I think you'll find that "women and children" as a group are more defenseless in most cases then men. Show me one culture where men are killed because they dishonored their family by marrying someone of their choosing. Show me one society where men are splashed with acid because their families couldn't cough up enough dowry. Domestic violence is a problem, regardless of gender. But as a general rule (and there are exceptions) men are stronger than women. If a woman comes after a man, he can more likely defend himself. That is not always the case for women. Add to that in male-female rape, it is extremely rare for a woman to rape a man, unless he is underage.
You're right, there is a movement that casts men in a negative light. I am not defending that. Equality goes both ways. However, I think you'll find if you analyse language that is commonly used there is a stronger perjorative towards women than men. I'm not talking about media, I'm talking about common parlance.
But thank you for pointing out another side of the debate. I really do appreciate it.
@BubblyIan (750)
•
14 Oct 08
You make a very good point and one that has long since been lost along the way by the feminist/politically correct anti-male movement.
Many thanks for your comment.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
3 Sep 08
But notice that bachelor and spinster are, or at least were, value neutral terms and that old men are also old codgers, old duffers, old fogies. Strictly speaking the all words are value neutral, it is the value we attach to them. As someone once said, if we all called each other n1gger then pretty soon the word would loose its offensiveness.
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
3 Sep 08
Words in and of themselves, you are right, are neutral. But no word can be uttered without its conotation being understood.
You are right about the terms for old men, thank you. But it's interesting to note that all the examples you cited have come to depict men who are old-fashioned in their thinking. Whereas, the term crone and hag imply a woman who is old and ugly. Does this show that women are still judged solely for their looks while men are judged based on how they think?
I take issue that spinsiter was ever value neutral. Yes, at one point it decribed an unmarried woman who spun wool. However, unmarried women have always been valued less than their married counterparts, with very few exceptions. Bachelor is value neutral, it doesn't imply anything positive or negative. However, no woman in the world would enjoy being called a spinster.
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
22 Oct 08
I typically have a problem with looking to nouns for revealing clues about a culture, usually the good stuff is in the pronouns and adverbs! Really, I think any negative connotations surrounding spinster or anything like that manifests as a reflection of how society views the person, not the other way around.
1 person likes this
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
24 Oct 08
Words carry weight if you let them. I'm not saying that the word "spinster" or any of the other examples don't have negative connotations, but it's not a language issue, it's a cultural issue. Replace "spinster" with "aged goddess" and a few years from now that will have a negative connotation! That's the reason I have trouble with looking to nouns for clues about society's judgments, whatever connotations they carry, they still are neutral because it is the available word.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
24 Oct 08
So, you don't feel that words carry weight? Granted, every word is an arbitrary sound we equate with a meaning. However, as part of human cultural development, I think, we have attributed value to those various terms. Thus a culture and its language are intertwined. So, the values of that culture are tied up in the language the culture uses. Spinster is a two syllable sound, but its meaning has weight. I don't see many women considering the title a compliment. But the male equivalent does not carry the same weight. Most men do not object to the term bachelor.
