- After reading Richardson's article about gender stereotyping,define the ways men and women are stereotyped through languageandoffer examples from the reading to support your points.
- Then,discuss at least two ways you have seen this play out in your own life or in the life of someone you know. Alternatively, you could also discuss how you see this kind of gendered language being displayed in popular culture and the media.
Laurel Richardson REA DIN G :1.2 Gender Stereotyping in the English Language Everyone in our society, regardless of class, ethnicity, sex, age, or race, is exposed to the same language, the language of the dominant culture. Analysis of verbal language can tell us a great deal about a people's fears, prejudices, anXieties, ana interests. A ricln'ocaDulary' on a particular subject indicates societal interests or obsessions (e.g., the extensive vocabulary about cars in America). And different words for the same subject (such as freedom fighter and terrorist, passed away and croaked, make love and ball) show that there is a range of attitudes and feelings in the society toward that subject. It should not be surprising, then, to find differential attitudes and feelings about men and women rooted in the English language. Although English has not been completely analyzed, six general propositions concern ing these attitudes and feelings about males and females can be made. First, in terms of grammatical and semantic structure, women do not have a fully autonomous, independent existence; they are part of man. The language is not divided into male and female with distinct conjugations and declensions, as many other languages are. Rather, women are included under the generic man. Grammar books specify that the pronoun he can be used generically to mean he or she. Further, man, when used as an indefi nite pronoun, grammatically refers to both men and women. So, for example, when we read man in the fol lOWing phrases we are to interpret it as applying to both men and women: "man the oars," "one small step for man, one giant step for mankind," "man, that's tough," "man overboard," "man the toolInaker," "alienated man," "garbageman." Our rules of etiquette complete the grammatical presumption of ~clusivity. When two per sons are pronounced "man and wife," Miss Susan Jones changes her entire name to Mrs. Robert Gordon (Vander bilt, 1972). In each of these correct usages, women are a part of man; they do not exist autonomously. The exclu sion of women is Well expressed in Mary Daly's ear-jar ring slogan "the sisterhood of man" (1973:7-21). However, there is some question as to whether the theory that man means everybody is carried out in practice (see Bendix, 1979; Martyna, 1980). For exam £!~~an eight-year-old interrupts her reading of "The Story onne Cavemen"''''to ask how we gothete without cavewomen. A ten-year-old thinks it is dumb to have a woman postman. A beginning anthropology student believes (incorrectly) that all shamans ("witch doc tors") are males because her textbook and professor use the referential pronoun he. But beginning language learners are not the only ones who visualize males when they see the word man. Research has consistently demonstrated that when the generic mart is used, people visualize men, not women (Schneider & Hacker, 1973; DeStefano, 1976; Martyna, 1978; Hamilton & Henley; 1982). DeStefano, for exam ple, reports that college students choose silhouettes of males for sentences with the word man or men in them. Similarly, the presumably generic he elicits images of men rather than women. The finding is so persistent that linguists doubt whether there actually is a seman tic generic in English (MacKay, 1983). Man, then, suggests not humanity but rather male images. Moreover, over one's lifetime, an educated American will be exposed to the prescriptive he more than a million times (MacKay, 1983). One consequence is the exclusion of women in the visualization, imagi nation, and thought of males and females. Most likely this linguistic practice perpetuates in men their feel ings of dominance over and responsibility for women, feelings that interfere with the development of equal ity in relationships. Second, in actual practice, our pronoun usage per petuates different personality attributes and career aspirations for men and women. Nurses, secretaries, and elementary school teachers are almost invariably referred to as she; doctors, engineers, electricians, and presidents as he. In one classroom, students referred to an unidentified child as he but shifted to she when 120 121 RICHARDSON I GENDER STEREOTYPING IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ~uage In as to whether the y is carried out in a, 1980). For exam er reading of "The 'Ie got here without t is dumb to have a hropology 'student nans ("witch doc oak and professor 5 are not the only see the word man. Ited that when the ~ men, not women 10, 1976; Martyna, itefano, for exam ose silhouettes of 'n or men in them. elicits images of 5 is so persistent ually is a seman but rather male le, an educated criptive he more me consequence llization, imagi lies. Most likely men their feel tity for women, lment of equal oun usage per ~es and career :es, secretaries, lOst invariably ectricians, and 'nts referred to I to she when ISCUssing the child's parent. In a faculty discussion ofd . .. . he roblems of acqulTlng new staff, all archItects, t ~eers, security officers, faculty, and computer pro ;;mmers were referred to as he; secretaries and file clerks were referred to as she. Martyna (1978) has noted that speakers consistently use he when the referent has a high-status occupation (e.g., doctor, lawyer, judge) but shift to she when the occupations have lower status (e.g., nurse, secretary). Even our choice of sex ascription to nonhuman objects subtly reinforces different personalities for males and females. It seems as though the small (e.g., kittens), the graceful (e.g., poetry), the unpredictable (e.g., the fates), the nurturant (e.g., the church, the school), and that which is owned and/or controlled by men (e.g., boats, cars, government~!•.nations)represeDJ. the Jerm- . n£ie, whereas that which is a controlling forceful power in and of itself (e.g., God, Satan, tiger) primarily repre sents the masculine. Even athletic teams are not immune. In one college, the men's teams are called the Bearcats and the women's teams the Bearkittens. Some of you may wonder whether it matters that the female is linguistically included in the male. The inclusion of women under the pselidogeneric man and the prescriptive he, however, is not a trivial issue. Lan guage has tremendous power to shape attitudes and influence behavior. Indeed, MacKay (1983) argues that the prescriptive he "has all the characteristics of a highly effective propaganda technique": frequent repetition, early age of acquisition (before age six), covertness (he is not thought of as propaganda), use by high-prestige sources (including university texts and professors), and indirectness (presented as though it were a matter of common knowledge). As a result, the prescriptive affects females' sense of life options and feelings of well-being. For example, Adamsky (1981) found that women's sense of power and importance was enhanced when the prescriptive he was replaced by she. Awareness of the impact of the generic man and pre scriptive he has generated considerable activity to change the language. One change, approved by the Modem Language Association, is to replace the pre scriptive he with the plural they-as was accepted prac tice before the eighteenth century. Another is the use of he or she. Although it sounds awkward at first, the he or she designation is increasingly being used in the media and among people who have recognized the power of the pronoun to perpetuate sex stereotyping. When a professor, for example, talks about "the lawyer" as "he or she," a speech pattern that counteracts sex stereotyp ing is modeled. This drive to neutralize the impact of pronouns is evidenced further in the renaming of occu pations: a policeman is now a police officer, a postman is a mail carrier, a stewardess is a flight attendant. Third, lingUistic practice defines females as immature, incompetent, and incapable and males as mature, com plete, and competent. Because the words man and woman tend to connote sexual and human maturity, common speech, organizational titles, public addresses, and bath room doors frequently deSignate the women in question as ladies. Simply contrast the different connotations of lady and woman in the following common phrases: Luck, be a lady (woman) tonight. Barbara's a little lady (woman). -" ....., Ladis/;' (Women's)·-Air Corp5':" In the first two examples, the use of lady desexual izes the contextual meaning of woman. So trivializing is the use of lady in the last phrase that the second is wholly anomalous. The male equivalent, lord, is never used, and its synonym, gentleman, is used infrequently. When gentleman is used, the assumption seems to be that certain culturally condoned aspects of masculinity (e.g., aggressivity, activity, and strength) should be set aside in the interests of maturity and order, as in the following phrases: A gentlemen's (men's) agreement. A duel between gentlemen (men). He's a real gentleman (man). Rather than feeling constrained to set aside the stereo types associated with man, males frequently find the opposite process occurring. The contextual connota tion of man places a strain on males to be continuously sexually and socially potent, as the following examples reveal: I was not a man (gentleman) with her tonight. This is a man's (gentleman's) job. Be a man (gentleman). Whether males, therefore, feel competent or anxious, valuable or worthless in particular contexts is influ enced by the demands placed on them by the expecta tions of the language. Not only are men infrequently labeled gentlemen, but they are infrequently labeled boys. The term boy is reserved for young males, bellhops, and car attendants, 122 SE en 0N 3 REPRESENTATION, LANGUAGE, AND CULTURE and as a putdown to