Inherent Sexism in the English Language

Eve – Year 12 Student

Editor’s Note: Year 12 Student, Eve G has entered the below essay into the video essay competition: Massolit. She thoughtfully considers how language is inherently bias towards the heteronormative man and does this by exploring multiple linguistic examples. EB

Our language, like so many others, evolved through ages where the patriarchy dominated, resulting in English, which is the lingua franca of the world, being inherently bias towards the heteronormative man. Now, before I go any further, I want to discuss what this statement means. The term heteronormative man means a man who conforms to the societal norms: being heterosexual, playing the expected gender role of breadwinner for his family, and potentially not really expressing vulnerable emotion. Unfortunately, this bias is not covert, but rather quite overt, manifesting itself everywhere in our daily lives, from job applications and the workplace employing the ‘male standard’ to historical patronyms, where, even if a woman chooses to keep her maiden name upon marriage, will only remain tied to her father.

In the English language, gender-marked terms and job titles reveal the implicit identities assumed for each term and job. Before we explore this, what is a gender-marked term? This simply means a term or job title, such as midwife, requiring a gender marking when being used outside of the context of the assumed gender playing that role, for example, midwife would become male-midwife, as it is assumed that this lower paid, service position is held by a woman. Prevalent in the example of mother becoming working mother or midwife becoming male midwife embodies this covert ideology that women should either be a full time mother, with the ‘working’ marker implying this is an abnormality. If they must work, it is expected to be in low paid service work, accumulating little, if any, prestige. When it comes to gender and language study there are two dominating views: linguistic determinism and linguistic reflectionism. Linguistic determinism is the idea that the language used in a society, whether that be in literature or general speech, creates and reinforces stereotypical and potentially harmful perceptions and views. Linguistic reflectionism, on the other hand, is the idea that the language used in a society reflects, rather than reinforces, these views. In the case of gender-marked terms, I have to side with linguistic determinism, since these gender marked terms, job titles in particular, may influence young girls to strive only for jobs of a lower status and pay; believing that positions of power are almost out of bounds to them. This may be disputed with the example of ‘prostitute’ and ‘male prostitute’, since this is perceived to be an undesirable job and, therefore, does not lead women into the profession. Whilst this may be the case, the point still stands that there is an assumption that this service-based and, arguably taboo, job belongs to a woman: an idea that is and has been for generations, widely accepted.

Linguistic determinism is the idea that the language used in a society, whether that be in literature or general speech, creates and reinforces stereotypical and potentially harmful perceptions and views.

This bias towards the heteronormative man, unfortunately, does not only exist in one sphere of society, but also in an integral part of our language: formal and informal address. It becomes apparent upon looking into the standard formal terms of address that they protect the man by not revealing his marital status yet immediately reveal a woman’s and, in informal address, hyperbolise the power that the men possess whilst actively disrespecting the woman. If we take a closer look into formal address we discover that for men, marital status was too trivial a part of their identity to be disclosed upon introduction; however, for women, it was. This has led and currently leads to immediate assumptions. If a woman is formally addressed as ‘miss’, implying that she is unmarried, from a certain age, many wonder what it could possibly be that is wrong with her, making her an unfit wife. Furthermore, due to these assumptions, an unmarried woman, particularly those who are accomplished, being referred to as ‘miss’ is not only infantilising, but groups them with the limited life experience and intelligence of young girls. This gives the impression that in order for a woman to achieve anything, they must first conform to societal expectations. If we take a closer look at terms of address in a completely different setting: informal terms of address, we find that women are often addressed using derogatory language, such as ‘bitch’ and ‘slut’, whereas men appear to be handed power on a silver platter, when addressed with terms such as ‘chief’ and ‘governor’, which immediately places them in a falsely fabricated position of power. Moreover, in 1994, Hines discovered through his research, that women tend to be referred to as desserts, such as ‘cupcake’ or ‘sugar’, implying that women should look pleasing on the eye and be readily available for men’s consumption. This was not the case with men. Now, it could be argued that women have the option to leave their marital status in ambiguity with the use of the neutral formal address ‘Mx’; however, this is not proving a common or popular approach, meaning there is a stigma automatically attached to any woman who chooses to use it. I have mentioned a few times previously that the English Language is not biased towards men as a whole, but specifically heteronormative men. This seemingly nuanced difference is actually a lot more major than it may first appear. Demonstrated well in the formal ‘Mr’ or ‘Mrs’, this type of language excludes the entire demographic of gay, or non-heterosexual men and women, as it comes with unavoidable connotations of referring to a heterosexual, monogamous couple.

As I mentioned at the beginning, there is a widespread use of the ‘male standard’: using the standard male pronouns as a generic e.g. when he receives a certain qualification, he will promoted. This is mostly found in the workplace, specifically amongst job applications. This excludes women, and anyone who does not identify using the ‘he/him/his’ pronouns. This is not only, as many assume, a historic problem, but also a concrete feature of the English language that prevails to this day. The ‘male standard’ is not the only form of its type as the arguably more subtle false generic, such as ‘chairman’ also alienates anyone who does not identify as a man, thus accidently giving men an inherent advantage and superiority in the workplace. For literally hundreds of years, gender neutral pronouns, aside from they and them, have been promoted, despite never taking root, embodying the stubborn nature of our language when it comes to gender accommodation. Whilst, though superficially, politically correct language has been encouraged in the workplace, the historic roots of the ‘male standard’ appear to be too stark for any real change to become apparent, thus contributing to the notion that our language remains in its historic ways, refusing to accept modern epiphanies about gender equality.

Hines discovered through his research, that women tend to be referred to as desserts, such as ‘cupcake’ or ‘sugar’, implying that women should look pleasing on the eye and be readily available for men’s consumption.

Semantic asymmetry is a term coined by Muriel Schutz in 1975, referring to the conflicting collocations and connotations between the male and female version of a label e.g. spinster versus bachelor. These terms, in theory, should mean the same thing with their only variation being the gender to which they refer; however, this is not the case. Whilst the female version, ‘spinster’, connotes loneliness, isolation and an undesirable look or personality, the male equivalent appears to imply financial wealth, societal wealth and sexual freedom. This dangerous dichotomy represents the linguistically ingrained attitudes towards men versus women. There are potentially positive connotations of spinster, such as life experience and intellectual ability; however, these qualities appear to have been stolen from the typical old woman, reinforcing the image of a spinster being old and alone. Bachelors may be perceived as being immature, yet we, either subconsciously or consciously, hold out an expectation that this is a short-lived phase and they will soon settle down: this hope is not automatically harboured for spinsters.

To conclude, the English language remains heavily biased towards the heteronormative man and anyone who identifies outside of this niche bracket of society will always have the obstacle of discriminatory language holding them back.