Today, we are seeing welcomed steps towards gender equality that have been a long time coming. Whilst we celebrate progressions, it has become increasingly apparent that parts of society have been left behind. The gender pay gap that still exists is a clear example of this and another, maybe unexpectedly, is the English language itself.
Some of the language we use in today’s society still stems from the patriarchal ideals of the past, which leaves us questioning whether language is developing towards equality in the same way that society as a whole is beginning to.
A bachelor is “a man who is not and who has never been married”
Perhaps the most obvious way of exploring sexism in the English language is to examine male and female terms with the same meaning. For instance, the nouns ‘bachelor’ and ‘spinster’ both refer to an unmarried man or women; respectively.
According to the Oxford Languages definition of ‘bachelor’, it is “a man who is not and who has never been married.”
This came to be the widely recognised definition of the noun ‘bachelor’ in the 14th Century. The phrasing of this definition, especially when taken alongside that of the female term, appears to be congratulatory and domineering. Ordinarily, having pride in being unmarried is more than acceptable. However, if we compare this to the definition of ‘spinster’, we are able to see dangerous and outdated stereotypes beginning to surface. On top of this, it is worth considering the link between the term ‘bachelor’ and intelligence, with a Bachelor’s Degree, therefore creating a male image of superiority and power.
A spinster is “an unmarried woman, typically an older woman beyond the usual age of marriage”
Now, let’s compare this to the definition of the supposed equivalent for females: “an unmarried woman, typically an older woman beyond the usual age for marriage”
‘Spinster’ is a 17th Century term that originally referred to a woman who spun thread. The term became associated with unmarried women with the idea that a woman without a husband would rely on spinning as her sole source of income. We have to question though, what is the ‘usual age’ for marriage and why is it still an expectation that modern women should uphold?
Oxford Languages recognises it as a ‘derogatory’ term, however, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent that is not loaded with negative connotations. Arguably, this forces women into a position of subservience, implying that they ought to be pitied for not marrying, whilst being single for men a cause for celebration.
“Why are we still bound by prescriptivist grammar laws that were created over 300 years ago when misogyny was at the heart of society?”
Undoubtedly, these definitions hark back to the traditionalist views of the necessity of marriage for women. Something interesting to note on this topic might be the titles ‘Mr.’ and Mrs.’ . I think I can speak for most of us when I say I have never seen these titles the other way around. But there is a reason behind this, albeit a somewhat infuriating one.
In the 16th to 18th Centuries, English grammarians published a set of rules which included the rule that “the male term must always come before the female term”. To me, this is baffling. Why are we still bound by prescriptivist grammar laws that were created over 300 years ago when misogyny was at the heart of society? Although these rules aren’t violently enforced, I don’t know a single person that doesn’t subconsciously abide by them. ‘Mr.’ and ‘Mrs.’ are primarily gender marking terms, however, for women, it is also an indicator of marital status.
Yet again, we see an example of male prioritisation in our daily lexicon.
“What is a woman’s place? Is it in the domestic setting, as the patriarchy enforces? Or is it in the workplace, in positions of power?”
Let’s explore what kind of picture female language paints of women as a whole. Even as I write this, I realise the phrase ‘female language can be interpreted as highly problematic. This clarification implies a sense of otherness towards women, suggesting that they are a sub-group of the ‘standard’ lexicon, which by default, must be male-centric.
A good place to start here is with American Linguist, Robin Lakoff. In 1973, she published Language and a Woman’s Place which detailed a set of linguistic features that she believed makes up female speech. Once more, we have come across a troubling term: what is a woman’s place? Is it in the domestic setting, as the patriarchy enforces? Or is it in the workplace, in positions of power? I think we can agree that it is down to the individual to decide this but Lakoff puts forward the idea that it is already decided by the language that women use. Some of the notable linguistic features mentioned were hedging (overuse of phrases such as ‘like’ and ‘sort of’) and tag questions (addition of ‘you know?’ and the like to a declarative sentence).
We must question this though: are these lexical features truly as negative as they are positioned to be? Is it a problem that women use super polite forms such as ‘would you mind…’ or ‘I’d appreciate it if…’ or hyper-correct their own grammar? I don’t think I would argue that it is.
“O’Barr and Atkins allude to the idea that the very language that women use forces them back into the domesticated housewife stereotype.”
Interestingly, linguists William O’Barr and Bowman Atkins put forward a theory in relation to Lakoff’s findings in their 1980 article Women’s Language or Powerless Language’. This heading alone signifies the worrying concept that O’Barr and Atkins were hinting at. Their study was conducted in a North Carolina criminal court and examined the language of both female and male witnesses. The discrepancies between theirs and Lakoff’s findings arose in the fact that it was not just women who were using Lakoff’s female language features but also the men. They put forward the idea that language is used in relation to societal status in a specific context rather than being intrinsically linked to gender. In this case, both the male and female witnesses in question used what they deemed to be a ‘powerless language’ because of their inferiority in comparison to the lawyers who were interrogating them.
Naturally, this forces us to see a parallel between the female gender and the feeling of subordination. O’Barr and Atkins allude to the idea that the very language that women use forces them back into the domesticated housewife stereotype. Taken together, both this and Lakoff’s work creates, quite frankly, an archaic perception of women, illustrating them to be societally low status and weak.
It is odd to think that the language we use to communicate on a daily basis is rooted in alarming stereotypes. Of course, I’m not advocating a reinvention of our language itself, but we must be conscious of the gender imbalance that it creates.
If you’ve got a further interest in female language in relation to society as a whole, I would highly recommend linguist Deborah Cameron’s blog, Language: a feminist guide, which can be accessed here.
Nicola Townsend
Featured image courtesy of Pisit Heng on Unsplash. Image license can be found here. No changes were made to this image.
