What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: Gender-Exclusive Language in English
Elizabeth Alford
Imagine a language free of number or gender. Try to construct a sentence that does not use some sort of singular or plural noun. Then try to refer to a person without using a personal pronoun such as "she" or "he." If English is your native language, this may be rather hard to imagine. You may even say that such a language could not possibly exist. But such a language does, in fact, exist; this language is the Jaqi language of South America. In his article "The Sexist Circuits of English," M. J. Hardman compares the English language to that of the Jaqui language. Hardman points out that "English speakers regularly view this number classification as ‘natural,’ a part of nature rather than a learned part of an arbitrary system." Similarly, English speakers view sexism in language much the same way. Hardman claims that "One of the factors that makes it so difficult for us to perceive sexism, let alone to free ourselves of it, is that sexism is deeply embedded in our grammar in such a way that we are mostly unaware of its daily impact." This daily impact is harmful. Though most would agree that blatant sexual discrimination is harmful, there is much debate over whether less obvious sexism in language should be taken seriously, specifically the use of masculine words and pronouns to refer to all people. The generic use of masculine pronouns in English should be eliminated, not only because it is harmful to women, but because it is harmful to those who use it and causes a deterioration of good communication.
While the use of gender-inclusive language makes people feel better about themselves, this doesn’t necessarily do much for women’s rights, as many famous and respected feminists might point out. Ehrenreich aptly makes this point:
Now, I’m all for verbal uplift. I like being called Ms. I don’t want people saying "man" when they mean me, too. I’m willing to make an issue of these things. But I know that even when all women are Ms., we’ll still get sixty-five cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Minorities by any other name–people of color, or whatever–will still bear a huge burden of poverty, discrimination, and racial harassment. Verbal uplift is not the revolution. (qtd. in Peterson)
Although she makes a valid point here, changing language is a good way to begin changing actions. Marlis Hellinger points out that "contrary to the assumption that language merely reflects social patterns such as sex-role stereotypes, research in linguistics and social psychology has shown that these are in fact facilitated and reinforced by language" (qtd. in Maggio 313). It is obvious, too, that Ms. Ehrenreich does not object to this "verbal uplift," so we might as well start now to change language in order to facilitate future attempts at obtaining equal rights.
Mark E. Johnson and Seana Dowling-Guyer point out the fact that although "the American Psychological Association (APA, 1977) has long required authors to use feminine and masculine pronouns whenever referring to a generic individual, such unbiased language has not made its way into mainstream communication." Generic use of the masculine is still used in everyday speech, writing, and the media, and attempts at neuterizing the singular pronoun is often scoffed at and made fun of by the "conservative resistance" which derogatorily labels the whole idea "political correctness" (Peterson). The fact of the matter is that generic masculine words do not provoke generic thoughts. Extensive studies have shown that "generic" masculine pronouns cause people to think of males. An article by Erika Falk and Jordan Mills contains pages of studies confirming these results. In one such study, "Hyde (1984) asked subjects to tell stories in response to cue sentences containing stimuli words such as ‘he,’ ‘he and she,’ or ‘they.’ She found that in the ‘he’ condition only 12% of the stories were about females, as opposed to 18% in the ‘he or she’ condition, and 42% in the ‘they’ condition" (Falk and Mills).
Besides the generic use of the masculine, it is also common in everyday writing and speech to refer to female and male together with male preceding female as in "male and female," "men and women," "boys and girls," and "husband and wife." Hardman offers an amusing anecdote recounted by Brooke Kelly to illustrate the extent to which this occurs:
While doing my research for this paper, I was surprised to find that not one subject (female or male) made a phrase with the female in the first position. I asked each subject to circle their [sic] gender at the top of the page, and I listed female before male. In fact, the male as primary seems to be so accepted that males circled female as their gender. I guess they were so accustomed to being first they neglected to even read the options. (Hardman)
Such statistics and stories illustrate the predominantly androcentric society in which we live, where male is considered the "norm." Still more studies show the adverse effects of using masculine pronouns to refer to all people. A study done by Bem and Bem in 1973 found that when an ad advertising a job used the generic masculine pronoun, women were less likely to apply for that job. They found that when the advertisement was written using masculine pronouns, less than 5% of the women surveyed showed any interest in the job, compared with 25% interest when the wording included both sexes, and 45% interest when the wording was actually directed toward women (Falk and Mills). Another study done by Crawford and English in 1984 shows that women learn facts better when the information is given to them in gender-inclusive terms rather than generic masculine terms (Wheatherall). These studies have significance for other groups of people, as well as for women. Obviously it is to the advantage of women that language be used in a gender-inclusive form because they are better able to learn and feel that they have more opportunities. Knowing that women learn better when gender-inclusive language is used implies that they pay more attention to material offered to them in this form. This information can be used as a great persuasive tool. Generally when gender-inclusive language is used, women are more apt to listen, thus giving the speaker greater respect and persuasive power. Johnson and Dowling-Guyer did a study on the correlation between use of gender-inclusive language by a counselor and the effectiveness of that counselor, as judged by the client, and found that counselors using more gender-inclusive language gained more respect and were rated more expert than those who used gender-exclusive language.
Some people object to gender changes in language because of "trivialities" or "absurdities" that may arise. Some have suggested that an elimination of generic masculine words will lead to more absurd changes. Soon any word with the three letter "man" in it will be changed, for example, "manhole" to "personhole" or "manipulate" to "personipluate." If this is the case, then the work "woman" would have to be changed as well (which, oddly enough, has actually been suggested). Obviously these suggestions are ridiculous and would never be seriously implemented. Rosalie Maggio points out that no "reputable sociolinguist" has ever advocated these types of changes. She also condemns those who try to make this argument by claiming, "Using a particular to condemn a universal is a fault in logic" (315). It is generic masculine words and pronouns referring to people that create stereotypes and unnecessary sexism in language.
Still other people object to changes in language because they do not wish to be subject to the "thought police" or forced to be "politically correct." The faulty reasoning in this argument is that no one is being "forced" to speak in any particular manner. Freedom of speech is still the First Amendment to the constitution in the United States. Obviously, there is going to be resistance to change, as there almost always is. The fact of the matter is, however, that those who choose not to speak in "politically correct" terms, as they are labeled, not only do a disservice to those they speak of, but also to themselves. As was mentioned earlier, a person gains respect and power through speaking to another person as they want to be spoken to. Also, those who are responsible individuals and who care about the feelings of others will respect others by calling them what they want to be called.
Another argument is offered by Spiro T. Agnew in his essay "English Anyone?" In the essay, he claims that there has been a breakdown of grammar as people have become lazy with language due to the feminist movement to eliminate gender-exclusive language in English. Agnew claims that many newspapers and commercials use the word "their" to refer to a singular subject when the proper word to use in this situation is actually "his." He also claims that he is "a strong advocate for eliminating discrimination against women" and asks, "But how is this accomplished by inhibiting the fluency maintained over hundreds of years?" (410). To this I would answer that it is not "fluency," but rather sexism in language that has been maintained over hundreds of years. In the preface to a computer programming book entitled Oh! Pascal! by Doug Cooper and Michael Clancy, the authors write, "Incidentally, all personal pronouns in Oh! Pascal! are feminine. After hundreds of years of ‘he’ and ‘his,’ a few decades of ‘she’ and ‘her’ shouldn’t bother anyone" (qtd in Hardman). Though this may be a dramatic way to illustrate a point, the point is well taken.
It is true that more and more people misuse plural pronouns on a regular basis, but this is not grounds for continuing to encourage sexism in language. The English language is constantly changing over time, as is seen by the change of the definitions of certain words, such as "gay," and the hundreds of new words that are added to the dictionary each time a new edition is published. Why can’t a trivial bit of grammar change also? People are so accustomed to using "they" and "theirs" to refer to singular nouns that no one but an English professor or astute student would pick it up in everyday writing or speech. Instead of fighting this error, why not make it proper English to sue these plurals to refer to singulars, and give everyone a break?
In the final paragraph of Agnew’s article he states, "To learn through the communication of ideas, we must understand each other--perfectly. This mandates care in the way we express ourselves" (411). And he is absolutely right. We must understand each other perfectly. We must use feminine words to refer to females and masculine words to refer to males. In order to promote understanding, we must concisely say what we mean. And in order to "mandate care in the way we express ourselves," we must respect the wishes of others by calling them what they want to be called. This means calling women, "women" and men, "men." I don’t think that Agnew would appreciate it if I used "woman" to generalize to a group that included him. Neither do I appreciate his calling me a "man."
While we cannot change our entire language to be free of sexism like that of the Jaqi language, we can strive to make it more nearly equal to include all people. At this point is has become clear that we must eliminate the use of generic masculine words and pronouns. Though this elimination does not immediately help women gain equality, the long-term effect will be powerful and far-reaching. In the short-run, we can look forward to the benefits of heightened communication, increased learning, and greater respect for our fellow human beings.
Works Cited
Agnew, Spiro T. "English Anyone?" Exploring Language. Ed. Gary Goshgarian. New York: Longman, 1998. 409-413.
Falk, Erika, and Jordan Mills. "Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense." Women and Language 19 (1996): 36-44.
Hardman, M. J. "The Sexist Circuits of English." The Humanist 56 (1996): 25-33.
Johnson, Mark E., and Seana Dowling-Guyer. "Effects of Inclusive Language on Evaluations of the Counselor." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 34 (1996): 407-419.
Maggio, Rosalie. "Bias-Free Language: Some Guidelines." Exploring Language. Ed. Gary Goshgarian. New York: Longman, 1998. 313-324.
Peterson, Eric E. "Nonsexist Language Reform and "Political Correctness." Women and Language 17 (1994): 6-11.
Wheatherall, Ann. "Re-visioning Gender and Language Research." Women and Language 21 (1998): 1-9.