In middle school American history class, I was taught that my forefathers founded a country where, “All men are created equal.” America has since stood as the shining beacon of democracy for all of mankind. In this new land, the common man had a voice. As we moved West, the pioneers learned that the mantra of every man for himself would not solidify their survival as much as acting as a fraternity of frontiersman. During the industrial revolution, good workmanship was paramount to the success of the man-made goods that were necessary to the American economy. When confronted with conscription, boys were instructed to take it like a man and fight. With centuries worth of US history in my arsenal, I entered my freshman year at Stanford University.
Notice anything odd about this brief American history lesson? From forefathers to freshman and “every man for himself” to “all men are created equal”, this paragraph highlights the default of masculinity in the English language. Gender-biased language has permeated American, whether in legal documentation, commonly used phrases, or occupations. For example, the use of the word “man” has long been seen as synonymous with “human being”, while in actuality it excludes half of the world’s population. A more modern example is that the use of the tern “you guys” to refer to a group of people is seen as including both men and women. If I were to say “you girls/gals”, the males in the room would not feel as though they were being included. (It is also important to acknowledge that the term “you guys” is representational of a regional dialect, similarly to the gender unbiased “y’all”).
This default masculinity is not only evident in American phrases or nouns but also observable throughout several different languages. For example, in Italian, “bambino” means boy, “bambina” means girl, “bambini” means both boys and children interchangeably. To further complicate the issue, almost all nouns in Romance Languages are gendered, sometimes to suit connotations of gender stereotypes. For example, the Italian word for kitchen is “cucina” which is feminine while “ufficio” (meaning office) is masculine.
Gender-biased words, especially those that default to masculinity, perpetuate a long established belief that the masculine is always superior to the feminine. By writing with this gender-bias, this belief persists to the detriment of social, political, and economic equality. In addition to upholding the inferiority of the feminine, this gender-bias throughout language refuses to acknowledge a gender neutral or those who do not identify with either of these genders. Some progress has been made in this case through the use of the word “they” as a singular pronoun for those who do not identify as “he” or “she”. Further, there has been a movement to create a new singular gender-neutral third person pronoun, such as “co” or “zie/hir” already used in several genderqueer communities. While establishing equality within language is extremely important, many believe that it would be nearly impossible for these new pronouns to be integrated into standard English speech.
The best way to alter gender-sensitive language and support gender equality in even the simplest of communication is to monitor your own language and try to use bias-free words and phrases in your every day life. I have included a list of examples of gender sensitive language below if you are interested.
Questions to consider: Are you aware of any languages that have a system of gender-neutrality? What do you believe is the most effective way to integrate gender-neutral pronouns into everyday language?
http://www.servicegrowth.net/documents/Examples%20of%20Gender-Sensitive%20Language.net.pdf
http://www.servicegrowth.net/documents/Examples%20of%20Gender-Sensitive%20Language.net.pdf
Great post, Tori! The two ways in which I have encountered this issue that come to mind are the Catholic Church and the French language. Having been raised both Catholic and by a staunchly feminist mother, I was made aware of the subtle exclusion of women in common prayers such as the Nicene Creed (“for us men and for our salvation”) and the beatitudes (“blessed are you when men reproach you”). Here, a bias toward men is shown by using “men” as a stand-in for the entire human race. Even in the commandment “thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s wife,” women are excluded as well as represented as objects owned by their husbands.
ReplyDeleteIn French, there is a similar situation to bambini, in that the male plural pronoun “ils” is used to describe a group of people containing any number of men, even if it is predominantly female. “Elles” is used only when a group is entirely female, greatly limiting its usage and placing the bias towards the masculine “ils.” French does have a fairly decent neutral pronoun in “on,” which roughly translates to “one” in English. It can be used to describe people’s feelings or actions in the abstract or as a stand-in for “nous” (us/we). However, it is not applicable in all situations and French still lacks a gender-neutral plural pronoun. Here it is the reverse of English: we have the gender-neutral “they” but lack a non-gendered singular pronoun that is used in everyday speech.
To address your question about including gender-neutral pronouns into everyday language, one of the things I have observed in my hometown in LA is that whenever someone refers to a person whose gender has not yet been disclosed, it's common to refer to them as "they". I also remember reading in Strunk and White's Elements of Style that writing "he or she" and the like can impede the flow of a sentence, and that rewording the sentence (whenever possible) to make the subject plural so that "they" could be used is a better alternative. This is not as common in Spanish, where the genders of things are more clear-cut and definitive in both the language and the cultures that use it, so I see English developing a more gender-inclusive pronoun before Spanish and other Romance Languages.
ReplyDeleteI think this post brings up some really interesting examples of gendered language. In particular, I find the english default of "you guys" when referring to a mixed group and the usage of "man" as synonymous with "human being" to be particularly thought provoking. In both of these cases, I think it is important to remember that language does not really have a set definition - it is defined by the way that we use it. Thus, the dictionary definition of "guy" might refer to someone male, but if the plural "guys" is commonly and ubiquitously used to refer to mixed gendered groups then the meaning of this plural is not really "males" it is "mixed gendered group". I think something similar happens with using "man" to refer to "human". It seems like there are multiple sense that people actually use the word man. Since it has become so common, at this point "human being" seems like a valid definition of the word.
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar or speak any language that is gender neutral but your post brought up some good points about gender being so engrained in a language. I do think that in history, especially through history books, the word man is used a lot. Similar to the examples you have given, the quote "Justice for all mankind" has always made me stop and think. I do think Elana has a good point when she said that language is heavily affected and words are defined by the way we use them. I think society has adopted certain words and shifted that specific word's meaning. I also wonder if words like "human" that have the word man in them can ever me replaced by a more gender neutral word that does not favor one gender over another.
ReplyDelete