The systematic oppression of women is encoded in regularised from of language use. With reference to appropriate literature, discuss the views which have been put forward to suggest that the English language itself is sexist. Do you agree or disagree with this perspective?
The oppression of women has not only been on the face of society for the past hundreds of years it has also been imbedded into the language that one uses everyday. The English language is not only a reflection of English society but also the chief method of developing and preserving the community in which everyone lives. Sexism in the English language is intertwined with the attitudes , values and social views of humans thus the sexist colloquialisms are reflected in mans lexicon. Therefore considering the question at hand and the fact that such an issue has arisen one can conclude the language of the everyday man is convoluted with oppression and sexism towards women which has ben prevalent in the everyday words that are used for centuries.
One could argue that sexism in the English language stems from two major factors such as socialisation and social economic causes.
Sex discrimination between men and women is derived from the inequality of status between the two sexes. Therefore sexism in language is impeded in the perceptions and attitudes of society towards both men and women. The pivotal social cause which commenced the attitude difference is labour devision. During the early evolution of man women were the authority in economic life and held a higher status in society than men. However as the process civilisation took hold, man entered a into a permanent patriarchal society. Biological stronger, men took advantage of this and wrestled the economic hegemony of women from them and became the new powerhouse in social economy. Women were forced to become dependant on men and to be subservient to men.
The process of socialisation allowed language to be formed and moulded by society as time went by. The most important factor in sexism in language is socialisation. This begins at birth. The behaviour of many people today is shaped by socialisation. This behaviour is influenced in children by role models, literature and toys. The sexual stereotypes and prejudices against girls and women are imbedded in textbooks and other children literature. Children’s books may suggest that science is a filed that is solely for men. These books teach young boys to be brave and decisive. Wheres girls are tough to be polite, compliment and benign. Perhaps not in this day and age, but parents and teachers who are the main agents of socialisation see boys as having greater creativity than girls. Mass media is another great influence on the general populations mind and therefore a great distributer of sexist content. As a result of this women ideology has come to portray that they are dependant upon man and this has become deeply rooted into a sort of social psychology. Sexism in the English language is lies within social inequality between the genders. Moreover if the deep divide in social status remains between men and women then, linguistically, any attempts to achieve equality will be very hard.
Many theologians have attempted to account for the simple fact that sexism exists in the English language of today by offering a variety of theories to help deal with the matter. Four main theories are selected to be analysed and discussed, these are as follows:
“Deficit theory” (Lakoff, 1973), Lakoff states that the lack of assertive and powerful language within the women’s lexicon is caused by the systematic oppression of women which reflects on their own self image of lacking social power. The roots of this are thought to be from Medieval times from the Great Chain of Being, (although the theory was first introduced and thought up by Plato and Aristotle, it was not until the Elizabethan era that people took it to heart) this states that God created an order for people on earth and chose where all his being were placed in the order. The chain has God at the top, man, woman, animals. The simple reality that women were placed just above animals shows emphasises the separation of the sexes and puts greater superiority on men. This stresses Christian influences in language as most devout Christians of the time believed that Eve was just an imperfect copy of Adam taken from his ribs. Therefore the language that women use was both inferior and imperfect to that of men, a poor representation of what the language of men is.
“The Dominance theory” (West and Zimmerman, 1987), this theory brings to light women’s limited impact in social interactions and is compared to that of a child where they are routinely interrupted and suppressed by man, much like parents do with their children. This occurs specifically in social situation where men inherently need to assert their dominance and power in social circles, this is done by women being constantly interrupted by men and their conversation often being crowded out by much louder and abrasive men. West states that the subservience of women is not because of intrinsic inferiority or a Devine will; rather it is suggested that is is due to sexual dimorphism which is encapsulated in a larger sphere of social dimorphism. To put this simply society is split into two categories of men and women each with their own societal roles. Considering that biologically men are physically stronger, they are able to project themselves and their physical dominate into the social atmosphere. Fishman put this very frankly stating that conversation is a matter of dominance and subordination and the “interactional shitwork” is left to the women.
“The Difference theory” is coveted by feminists as well as linguists and they seek to take the place of women on a linguistic level stating that they are different but equal. In retaliation of the Dominance theory where men lead the conversation, this theory suggests the facets of women conversation should be see as supportive and communal instead of low quality. According to Coates women are mentioned to be better conversation holders since they had to use different aspects of conversation to raise the level so all could be involved within the discussion. (Coates, 2004) The main thesis behind this statement is that both men and women are brought up to a different standard from childhood Coates, 1988). Wheres as boys are stimulated to speak up and dominate the conversation, girls on the other hand are told to hold their tongue and speak when spoken to much like small children. Moreover, anthropological studies have given evidence play time during school is a different matter for each sex group. Girls play games in which cooperation and involvement from all members is key, they are all equal. However boys are drawn to a single figure, a group leader, whom they all look up to who encourages competitiveness between all the participants. (Borker and Maltz, 2011) As a result of the different method of schooling in young persons, a subcultural has been created where mixed sex interactions (especially amongst boys who have attended all boys school) resemble those of a talk between different speaking people.
“Social Constructionist theory” originates from psychologists the late 20th century. The theory states that all above theorems have only focused upon white western woman and that other ethnicities may have different characteristic linguistically and societally. The theory outlines the reason for men and women speaking differently, which is due to their masculine and feminine identity. Your identity is derived from your gender, this means that because all men and women are not of the same ethnic background and sexual orientation and so forth they perhaps do not speak exactly the same s other women of different characteristics and ethnic persuasions.(Pichler, 2011) Moreover, the aforementioned factors are not and should not be enough to dictate linguistic attributes. This explained by the way most people change their conversation style and formality with whom they are speaking, for example how one talks to a teacher or parents and friends.(Holmes, 2011)
The characteristics of seeking women have many aspects to them that are perhaps not as dominant in men. Lakoff states that women are far more likely to use Hedges. These are utterances such as: kind of, well, you know. In addition to they are prone to use: would, could, should which are epistemic modals. These facts of conversation tend to lack commitment and show uncertainty. Moreover they may be a sign that the speaker is not done with his utterance and does not want to give his place in the conversation up. a further explanation for the use of such phrases is tentative speech. This was coined by Lakoff – “Perhaps, we could try fixing it instead of a more direct statement such as lets fix it. Most linguists however agree that the use of hedges does not necessarily show a paucity of assertiveness.
Furthermore gender and language studies such as Dr Fransisco (1991), propose that women are more likely to offer back channel support during conversations than men. For example simple responses such as: yeah, right, mhm, I see. Furthermore physical responses are also key to this such as nodding smiling or looking engaged with the speaker. These responses are not interruption they act as quite the opposite it is a sign that the listener is listening to the speaker.
However whilst women are very cooperative and attempt to keep the conversation flowing, men are more inclined to interrupt women during conversation( Bilmes, 1997).