Language, literacy and hierarchies.

[Damsili]

I've been thinking about how languages have evolved within systems of hierarchies and how that must have influenced the form and flavour of the words and phrases that are used. Before we even have the ability to really question the words and phrases we use, we are fluent in our native tongue, habitual in its structures and even have our thought processes informed by the structure of our language.

Continuing with that, I recall someone recently quoting Sandi Toksvig as saying that the alphabet helped men maintain power over women. (Slightly throwaway remark on R4, but still!) Certainly the ability to read and write is used as a tool to minimise female power in many countries and throughout history - but does literacy itself actually aid patriarchy? In thinking about how language develops, I can certainly see that it maintains the habitual reinforcement of sexist themes.

With that in mind, I'm also wondering if social media has simply exposed existing misogyny or whether the rise of the written word in communication can be correlated with a rise of sexist vitriol directed at women.

I mean you have to fully acknowledge how much our society and language are fixated on gender (and the stereotypes that go with it) in order to be able to effectively work to eliminate sexism and how people are treated so very differently based on their gender - in a way that would never be tolerated about other physical characteristics such as hair colour, height, race or sexual orientation.

To continue with an example we've already used, you have to acknowledge that the suffix "-man" at the end of traditionally male professions such as Fireman excludes women, even though they're just as capable of doing the job. Only after this language has changes is there any chance of society fully accepting that gender is irrelevant to being employed as a Firefighter.

You can't fix a problem by ignoring it and hoping it goes away. You have to identify it, characterise it, and have an actual plan in place to eliminate it.

Fixation on gender: recently I have found myself trying to use the word "person" rather than "man" or "woman" when referring to someone. I'm now wondering, having read this thread, whether that's due to a desire to reduce the apparent significance of gender?

Marking place. Really interesting!

This is a depressing list but one that could be easily rectified

It is a tiny bit disingenuous and I think obstructive to the cause to seek out 'man' in every possible word and attributing it to sexism. Manchester can keep its 'man' IMO.
Man as prefix

But the use of the word 'person' annoys me. It makes the word longer, and therefore more unwieldy.

We need a new ending which doesn't make the word longer.

Fireperson, just .... I don't know. Doesn't roll of the tongue as easily.

I like how instead of chairman or chairperson we just use chair. But that removes clarity for many things. Can't call them a Fire now, can we?!

One of the interesting things I noticed when I moved to the UK, is the never ending forms which ask all about ethnicity, backgrounds, etc.

The collection of the data is supposedly an attempt to ensure organisations are ensuring equality by hiring enough of all groups.

In Australia I had no forms like that to fill in. My background was anonymous, because organisations were not supposed to treat me any differently because of my background, and that was the way of ensuring equality.

Two totally opposite methods, and I can't honestly decide which way is better.

To bring it to the gender issue - is it better to be totally gender neutral, to get equality? Or is it better to focus on gender, to ensure gender equality? Doing a mix of them, won't necessarily work.

Yackity, I'm with the Australian approach.

I've now stopped answering questions re my gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation (wtf! I kid you not - on an application form for a job) etc etc

If we were all 'people' wether we are female or male, or white or black or green with pink polka dots and believed in God or Allah or aliens from outer space, then it'd be all good.
As an employer I have to apparently prove that I did not NOT hire this person because of their sexuality - if I did not know what their sexual preferences were (my very much preferred option!) then I could not discriminate on that basis. So, why ask for it on a form which then gets detached from the rest of the application only to have it on record that one asked but did not look at it?! Makes no sense to me.

So, why ask for it on a form which then gets detached from the rest of the application only to have it on record that one asked but did not look at it?!

Quite!

My friend warned me when I moved over, to not get all upset and worked up over what I would be asked in interviews. It all felt so incredibly intrusive compared to what I was used to.

I always used Ms in Australia, the whole time I was a public (civil) servant. All the women did, married or not. Loads used their 'maiden' names (what a word!) at work, but their married names at home. (Got quite confusing if someone tried to call for them with the other name). All teachers had to use Ms, my SIL was quite upset over it, but she still had to use it. It was just so EASY, it was expected and accepted.

When I moved over here I drifted into using Mrs far more, and really, I should go back over to Ms for everything.

Or, we could just add an 'n' to the word man meaning 'male' to make it different to 'man' meaning person.

I quite like that idea!

Doesn't roll of the tongue as easily

I'm not sure "unweildy" is a good enough reason not to do something. I know that in America the correct term for me to use is, "person of colour". I don't say, "I'm going to call you 'black' because it rolls off my tongue easier".

But even the 'person of colour' is just what's currently the politically correct way to describe somebody who is not caucasian. And even that's nonsense: my skin colour is nowhere near a Sicilian's or a Swedish peron's yet we are all 'white'
We should just drop it.
IMO.
We are all just people and have far, far more in common than our external differences.
And btw I reserve the right to dislike somebody or to criticise their views even if they are a 'person of colour' - I may disagree with an opinion not a skin colour.
I know it's not as simple as that and I think as a society we have to continue to be very alert wrt to racism and prejudice, just as as have to very alert wrt to sexism and prejudice towards women, but my! it's wearing.

Not being allowed to disagree with somebody because they are black is a strawman argument.

As a white, british person I do not feel it is my position to tell a black american that their preferred language is nonsense. It's the same as somebody telling me that preferring "firefighter" to "fireman" is nonsense, but providing no further explanation other than it doesn't trip off the tongue.

I am sorry you find this endless challenging of sexism and racism wearing.

Don't you?
It all seems to self-explanatory that I struggle to understand why it is as easy for me to fill my car with petrol as it is for DH (random stranger at petrol station as I filled up)… Just a tiny example.
I do keep doing it, but yes, it's tiresome at times.

I misunderstood you Pacific and mangled my response even more. I thought you meant that being PC-aware was wearing.

I agree, challenging the constant drip-drip of sexism is wearing.

No worries.
I have to remember the phrase 'straw man's argument' - this will come in very handy from time to time

Should be "straw person" argument though, shouldn't it?

Yes. It should.
There is No Hope we did not pick up on that...

This is another way of thinking it through; it makes you think about how shockingly discriminatory our everyday language is

That was fantastic, OutSelf. Thanks for posting it. What I found most weird about reading it was how uncomfortable it made me not being able to identify the gender of the people featured. It really does mess with our brains when we can't immediately peg people neatly into a gender box, and our language is hugely responsible for this, I think.

Outsself, that was incredibly interesting. Thank you for sharing. I have found this whole thread fascinating, having written an essay on gendered language and its effect as part of my training to become a languages teacher. I'll be back to add my two cents when I have a little bit more time to dedicate to articulation.

Adding my thanks to Outsself for sharing that essay. A really interesting/shocking and thought provoking read.

outsself that was brilliant - thanks

Welcome all

Thanks outs, haven't read that for a while and don't think I've seen the PS before.

This is great:

"My feeling about nonsexist English is that it is like a foreign language that I am learning. I find that even after years of practice, I still have to translate sometimes from my native language, which is sexist English. I know of no human being who speaks Nonsexist as their native tongue. It will be very interesting to see if such people come to exist. If so, it will have taken a lot of work by a lot of people to reach that point."

Depressing that Hofstadter wrote this in 1985 though...